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

Sun Nov 28 13:13:17 UTC 2004

* Daniel Roesen <dr at cluenet.de> [2004-11-28 14:05]:
> 
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Cliff Albert <cliff at oisec.net> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
> > 
> > unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'll see a 
> > dramatic increase in ASNs - I mean, it is not like only organizations 
> > with an ASN assigned have v4 space now. If they have their portable 
> > address space now, why should they suddenly accept that they had to 
> > renumber when changing providers?
> 
> Because they would have to _qualify_ for an ASN first. And the rules
> for that are sufficiently strict - you have to prove a distinct routing
> policy. That means either multihoming two at least two upstreams, or
> upstream plus peering. The shops who have only legacy PI space announced
> by their single static routed upstream won't qualify. Plain simple.

there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN 
and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make 
things much worse for them, so why should they?

on the other hand, 1 ASN -> 1 v6 prefix does not necessarily mean 1 v6 
prefix -> 1 ASN. might work out.

> The convenience factor _is_ already outlawed.

true for new allocations, but there is a gigantic installed base, and 
making their situation worse isn't exactly helping in getting v6 
deployed.

-- 
Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
hb at bsws.de - henning at openbsd.org
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)