Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would behave differently just because this is IPv6....On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:The main issue is, devise an exit plan before you let stuff pollute the
routing tables: part of the consensus should be an agreement on how the
advertisements will be limited in the future, so that only very few
sites get advertised that way. For example, maybe we should only agree
that a given ISP can only allocate a limited number of "routable /48".
Maybe a condition for accepting such a BGP advertisement will be that
the /48 should be of the form xxxx:xxxx:000y, where xxxx:xxxx is the
/32
allocated to the provider -- this would limit inflation to 16 entries
per provider...
I think that is to few, but the concept is actually pretty nice. Then again, I am not sure it will have much effect.X per ISP is not going to work as there are global ISPs and very, very local ones.
That is the way it works for many (perhaps most) of the multihomers today. 90% is better than the 0% we have today. Still, I agree that if we can come up with a common solution that would be better. My proposal is to accept /48 for the time being and not scale back until there is a new solution.Backing out is simple and will happen on it's own, as is the case today.
It would be much, much better if we could agree that everyone does this the same way. Having a route in 90% of the routers isn't much better than having it in 100% of the routers, but being able to reach 90% of the internet is much worse than being able to reach 100%.
What is it that we think we gain with these specific blocks, be it for site-locals or multihoming? The number of routes are not going to be less. If the RIRs use up their current assignments -good! Then at least we have a IPv6 network from where we can start drawing conclusions. The current routing table is mostly 6bone space that is temporary and should go away. That leaves us with the ~250 sub-TLAs currently assigned. I am not worried yet.
If geo aggregation isn't feasible, then I think a fixed block of PI /48s
for each RIR would be the next best option. I think that everyone can
agree that 4 or 5 x 1024 - 8192 (for a total of 4096 - 40960) routes
wouldn't be too bad if we can keep a tight lid on this. And if and when
other blocks are commisioned, people can choose to carry or filter
those, without hurting existing multihomers.