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.