RE: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Michel Py wrote:
> > Would it make sense to push Pekka's draft along the experimental
> > track in the spirit of RFC 1797 (the 39/8 subnet experiment)?
> > It may not be an optimal solution, but it would give the
> > community some breathing room while better methods are developed.
> >  I concur with Pekka that sunset provisions are important.
> 
> If a sunset is required, then requesting a "special" 6bone pTLA would be
> the way to go. I don't see what that would buy though, and here's the
> rationale:

Tying this to 6bone is an interesting idea, but the death of 6bone may be
too soon..
 
> The idea behind Pekka's draft is that deployment of IPv6 is being
> hindered because organizations that currently have an ASN are waiting
> for some kind of PI to deploy. Why are they waiting? Because they don't
> want to renumber. Giving these guys a prefix that sunsets does not do
> them any good.

Note that there are other motivations for multihoming than wanting not to 
renumber.

Renumbering _once_, when the mechanism is retired in 5 years (or whatever)  
could be entirely acceptable.

But what they mainly want, as far as I can see is independence and
redundancy; load sharing, performance and policy are just likely secondary
objectives (partially because due to more speficic routes not allowed,
they may be more difficult to do anyway).

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