[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Renumbering...
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>
>> As long as the registries continue to hand out PI space, and as long
>> as the ISP's continue to accept and advertise them
> part of our recommendation will likely be to cease the current practice
> of disseminating PI addresses ... we can phase out PI.
That's just not going to be accepted, IMO. The users leaned on the RIRs to do
PI, and any attempt to get rid of PI would take even more ooomph than
stopping them, and there clearly wasn't enough for that.
Speaking as one of "them", the reason we proposed (and accepted) PIv6
was that the IETF had provided no acceptable (to us) alternative. We
understand the costs of PI space, and don't like it any more than anyone
else, but felt we had no choice. If there were a viable alternative,
most of us would be back at the RIRs to propose ending PI assignments
(or renaming them EID assignments). SHIM6, HIP, and multiple PA blocks
were not, and are still not, considered viable options; my understanding
of this RRG was to come up with something that the "unstoppable force"
would find acceptable so that it could be redirected that way.
(Particularly since, AFAICT, in v6 the cutoff organization size for getting a PI block is smaller, which means that if v6 catches on, v6 routing tables will have even more entries than v4.)
I haven't studied all the RIRs, but in ARIN, where the movement started,
the bar for PIv6 was deliberately set to be equal to the bar for new
PIv4 space so, at worst, the number of routes would be the same.
However, that worst case will not happen for three reasons:
1. The liberal rules for allowing larger PIv6 blocks plus substantial
reservations for growth mean that each org _should_ only need one
block. Ideally, one block means one route in the DFZ.
2. A fixed and well-known minimum block size means filtering
more-specifics is easier.
3. Many, many orgs that have legacy space do _not_ qualify for PIv6
space because they wouldn't qualify for a new PIv4 block under current
rules; legacy space is (for now, at least) grandfathered.
Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to rain on everyone here, just trying to be realistic and hard-nosed - the ~15 year history of IPv6 shows us what happens when we're not sufficiently realistic and hard-nosed.)
I think the problem was being _too_ hard-nosed and refusing to listen
when the target audience for solutions was saying, preferring to push an
"everyone must use PA" dogma.
S
--
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