RE: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

To re-iterate (for all the w.g.), I don't like the approach myself, but I
fail to see good alternatives, _if_ something that works out has to be
pushed out soon.  If there's no such need, fine.

Btw, in a private comment a few bad typographical errors were pointed out
to me, so I updated the draft about 2 hours after I sent the message here.

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> This would create a terrible precedent. In the long run, we can expect:
> - People that have swamp space lobbying for v6 PI also, on the grounds
> that if people that have an ASN get v6 PI space they should get it too.
> Actually, swamp space holders have on paper a better reason than ASN
> holders to get v6 PI space.

Uhh, what do you mean by swamp space holders, those that don't have ASN?  
Multihomers that use private ASN's or static routing and have their
primary ISP advertise a more specific?

> - AS numbers being extended to 32 bits. 

If I have any say, I wouldn't extend AS number space at all, but I guess
that's another issue.. instead of making policy people try to solve a
problem with technology.  A bad mix.  Perhaps some serious time for
IAB/IESG architectureal guidance.  But I digress...

> Then people that get ASNs above
> 64k will also strongly lobby to get PI on the grounds that it's not fair
> that early adopters only get it.

I agree, but when that happens (3+ years), I'm hoping there are already
some mechanism(s) to do at least some multihoming.

The main point with the mechanism is that I don't see it likely that new,
really significant, big enterprises just crop up with a timescale of 3-5+
years and _require_ this kind of mechanism.  (As could be argued by many
enterprises of 10,000+ employees, today.)

> If we had no other choice, I would support this as being not as bad as
> unrestricted PI. But it's still unaggregatable, and we do have a better
> choice: GAPI.

GAPI is a new term to me.  I assume this means Geographically Aggregated
PI.  That kind of proposals have some really bad drawbacks, and I'm having
difficulties imagining those ideas materializing.
 
> If we come to the point where the community decides that indeed the
> deployment of IPv6 is being hindered by the lack of a solution (and
> we're not there yet), [...]

Well, maybe it is hindered, at least on paper.  Some just make lame 
excuses for not getting into IPv6.  For some, these problems are real, of 
course, but hardly something to delay IPv6 migration..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings