BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

Sat Nov 27 17:59:30 UTC 2004

> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI
> space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about anyone
> "should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation possible.
> PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a bigger mistake than all other
> IPv6 mistakes so far.
>
And v6 without PI for will not get widespread adoption.

Further, ULA will become de facto PI without aggregation.  Hence my believe
that ULA is a bad idea, and, my recommendation that we face the reality that
PI is an important thing (unless we want to replicate the v4 NAT mess).
As such, I'd much rather see us develop sane PI policy than continue down
the present road.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041127/b8ac3d55/attachment.sig>