Shim6 vs PI addressing
jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Mar 1 17:18:06 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 09:05 -0800, David Barak wrote:
> Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N
> hosts? If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN
> gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s. It
> would be a really long time before we had as many
> routes in the table as we do today, let alone the
> umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so
Today indeed, but you are missing the point that IPv6 should last for
the couple of next decennia. In IPv4 the starters also got a nice /8 as
a bonus and the result: new small entities complaining that the first
ones got the cool stuff and they can't have any.
You might have noticed the 32-bit ASN talk. This is there for a reason:
ASN's will go to 32bit mode. Can you say 4 million routes? :)
Simple isn't always good. The KISS principle doesn't always work...
The current 30k in-use ASN's (afaik they are even less) will and can
explode when that means you can get easy address space.
Btw, this is policy talk, you might want to bring that to ARIN PPML or
the various other lists. If you want to propose a PI policy, then please
make a decent proposal and send the relevant RIR group.
That endsites require "PI" is inevitable, but the way those routes end
up in the routing tables and the amount of address space each endsite is
getting should be relevant to need, not to the fact that you got an ASN.
(Which would mean I would qualify for 2x /32's... which is very silly as
the couple of /48's I use is way more than enough.
Please don't mix up addressing and routing. "PI addressing" as you
mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick.
(who simply would like a policy where endsites that want it could
request a /48 or /40 depending on requirements from a dedicated block
which one day might be used for identity purposes and not pop up in the
bgp tables or whatever we have then anymore....)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the NANOG