RE: Provider Independent addressing usage

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

The IXs are in process now first in Europe and now in Asia.
Do not view this as U.S. focus that is just one part of the Internet.


/jim


On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Hain wrote:

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > I think you'll find this goes back at least to a draft by Bill 
> > Simpson about 5 years ago, and I still haven't seen a convincing 
> > argument why all those IX's will spring into existence.
> 
> I never claimed it was novel. :) I think the difference between now and then is that at that time the discussion centered around having to make a hard choice between PI or provider-aggregates. The insurmountable problem was that exchanges had to come into existence immediately, or PI would sink the routing system. I believe that we are at a point were the host and routing implementations can realistically support both approaches simultaneously, and there are enough existing exchanges to bootstrap the process. Taking all of the multi-homed site problems out of PA space will allow meeting the IPv6 routing goal of reducing the table by 10x or more, as long as we can agree on a scaleable PI approach for those problems. It would be nice if someone with access to current topology and routing information would provide feedback about the real impact of each proposal from the perspective of each continent. I still contend from a theoretical perspective that if you write-off NA/Europe as hopelessly intertwined for the moment, my approach reduces the tables in the other 75% of the world to a handful of entries. I also believe that over time with a scaleable PI mechanism, even the NA/Europe problem will be cut in half. 
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
>