Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses)

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Nov 4 01:11:13 CDT 2010

On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at 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.
> because:
> 1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's
> b) every end site gets PA only
> iii) no need for pi
> d) all of the above

I understand how they rationalized the cop-out. Now, getting back to the
real world...


More information about the NANOG mailing list