BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Sat Nov 27 18:12:01 UTC 2004
On 27-nov-04, at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
So what would be a sane PI policy? Apparently you don't want ULAs
becoming de facto PI without aggregation, so do you agree that we need
aggregation for PI?
More information about the NANOG
mailing list