[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

>> Well, how will you address this issue in the *real* world ?
>
> I'm unsure.  One could use site-local addressing, but of course as with
> RFC1918 addressing, the chances are high that you run into collisions.
>
> For this specific case, using non-routeable PI is also a workable
> approach.  The tricky thing is the "non-routeable" part - the main 
> problem
> with PI is "routing table growth" (and the associated "AS number 
> burn"),
> which would not apply here.
>
> So maybe we need to add specific PI clauses, or let's call it 
> differently,
> "non-routeable globally unique IP(v6) addresses".
>
> If we do this, we need to be careful to point out that this is *not*
> "the multihoming solution", but a very specific corner case that can 
> not
> be properly tackled by aggregateable PA space.

Well, you could also argue that what Peter is trying to do is not what 
the intent of IPv6 is at all. The intent of IPv6 is that everyone can 
use public address space and we could get some interesting services 
working. That was ofcourse until the "let's copy RFC1918 into IPv6 and 
launch site-locals which  preferably are globally unique" mob took 
over....sarcastic? me? never...

But it's a good example as to why we should have ripped site-locals 
out...

- kurtis -