Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses)

Thu Nov 4 05:31:11 UTC 2010

On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
>>> it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
>>> used with PA.
> 
>> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there.
> 
> It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*.
> 
> Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in
> the IPv6 routing table?  Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start
> using PI prefixes?  (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an
> ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?)
> 
Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up with a
scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not
sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.

Owen