Re: [sbrim@cisco.com: Re: [RRG] Thoughts on the RRG/Routing Space Problem]

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 08:26:52AM +1300:
> On 2007-12-04 06:09, Scott Brim wrote:
>> So it's let's-have-fun-with-rhetoric day, eh?  We got here because of
>> the rate*state problems, of which PI allocations are a small part.
>> Once we got here, we discovered that we potentially had the freedom to
>> abandon the dogma that you are clinging to.  (At this point I believe
>> you're supposed to say "I find your lack of faith disturbing").
>
> Oh, I do, certainly ;-)
>
> However, my point was not intended as rhetoric. The reason we designed
> IPv6 for multiple prefixes per site was precisely to avoid the problem
> that IPv4 faced pre-CIDR. The emergence of PI allocations and BGP4-based
> multihoming for a large number of IPv6 sites would recreate that problem.
> It hasn't happened yet because we don't *have* a large number of IPv6
> sites yet. But if we can't get people used to the idea of multiple
> prefixes per site, we *will* have the problem, and I thought that
> was the main reason we're here - to keep the number of prefixes that
> the core has to route down to a manageable number, even if sites
> stick to the old notion of one prefix per site.

Yes but we don't need to push provider-allocation to do so if we have
a map&encap mechanism in place.  I don't know what the future
allocation mechanism will be -- it could be provider-based, and for
many sites that will work best  -- but it need not be.  My concern was
that you seemed to be saying that we had to stay with PA.  

swb

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg