Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Tue Nov 9 00:01:55 UTC 2004

Hay,

Daniel Roesen wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I just wait for people to realize that they won't be
> able to force people into provider lock-in, allow one PI prefix per
> AS and THEN things can go off. With that, the global IPv6 table
> would be around 18k routes btw. As IPv4 and ASN are virtually
> unrestricted available today, I don't suspect any bigger growth
> rates in IPv6 land for ASNs and prefixes than in the IPv4 land.
> As such, I fail to see the problem with PI for IPv6 for a long long
> time to come.
> 
> But that's just me silly. :-)

...not only you...

"Lower your filters, Resistance is futile. You will be flooded with 
/48s" :->

No, i mean, this issue/discussion is several years old now.
I haven't seen any movement in either direction - pro or contra IPv6-PI 
(or less strict IPv6-BGP filters to be correct) throughout the last years.

There are many good reasons why it's simply a matter of fact, that even 
if you start IPv6-PI now, the IPv6-BGP tables won't reach the currernt 
IPv4 size for the whole lifetime of IPv6, let alone that you always have 
to carry around the IPv4 tables for a loooooooooooong time anyways, not 
to mention that current routers are already fast enough and have enough 
RAM for decades to come anyways (yes, "640k is enough for anyone" :-).

This is simply stuck and one of the more important issues, why IPv6 
doesn't work out yet (like you said, "It's less useful than IPv4").

Believe it or not, there's a real world outside. We might not like it 
from a technical point of view, but we build networks for "them" to use 
it, so I don't even see the point about refusing IPv6-PI by anyone who 
wants to push IPv6-deployment.

But anyways, this thread is about something different, about 
RfC1918-equivalents. This shouldn't be mixed up in first place, but
I don't really like the idea of private IPv6 Network range either, 
because it means there will be IPv6-NAT with all the problems that NAT 
might cause, but there really might be SOME people who want to have it 
just like that.
Same thing as above... if people just LOVE RfC1918 and NAT, they might 
not want to have IPv6 because "it doesn't work with that".
Again, believe it or not, the majority of people and even network-admins 
out there don't really care if a solution is "the best for the 
community" or "the best from a scientific point of view", they just want 
it to be simple and working.
...and i always thought that IPv6 was build to be "simple and working".

> And yes, I read multi6 WG.

Sure, nice to have multi6 and new ideas, but i don't see them being
implemented and useful until 2015 or so (no offencement, people of 
multi6 :-)

Note: I don't say that new multihoming solutions are a wast of time, au 
contrair... but they _all_ won't replace the current 
(BGP-/PI-)multihoming solution in every case.

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz         SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= NOC BayCIX GmbH                                                      =
= http://www.noc.baycix.de/              * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================