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

Thu Nov 4 06:02:44 UTC 2010

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

because:
1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's
b) every end site gets PA only
iii) no need for pi
d) all of the above