[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" <fw at deneb.enyo.de>
>Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM
>
>
>>* Jeroen Massar:
>>
>>>>1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in
>>>>    the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match.
>>>
>>>What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject
>>>all their more specific /32's?
>>
>>You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s.  Shouldn't make a difference if the
>>/19 is really used.
>>
>>At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64
>>in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a
>>few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are.
>
>Hi,
>Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would be 
>interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the following:
>
>1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
>2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and take 
>their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a 
>more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get 
>multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also 
>announce a more specific.
>
>In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my phone 
>number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that 
>with internet providers?
>Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat with 
>todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to 
>handle that hence rule #1.


Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit 
of deployed capability of routing.

Then what?

    Geoff