Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses)
owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 4 00:31:11 CDT 2010
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
>> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
>>> it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
>>> used with PA.
>> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there.
> It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*.
> Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in
> the IPv6 routing table? Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start
> using PI prefixes? (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an
> ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?)
Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up with a
scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not
sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.
More information about the NANOG