On 23-nov-04, at 13:03, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
To offer true provider-independence, we would need to offer long-term,
renewable assignments of IP address prefixes directly to enterprises,
similar to the "swamp space" in IPv4, but perhaps with an annual fee
required to allow recapturing unused prefixes. Although this appears
ont he surface to be a policy issue, the reason that we don't do this
today is that it would cause unchecked growth of the global routing
tables and the eventual collapse of the Internet. To avoid this
technical problem, we would need to find a way to individually route a
very large number of prefixes. At the moment, though, we don't have a
generally accepted solution to this problem.
Well, if you put it like that, doesn't it make sense to simply
generally accept a solution to this problem?
I'm starting to be convinced (see recent NANOG discussions) that the
operator community isn't all that impressed with the multi6 efforts to
make multihoming possible with provider-derived addresses. It looks
like the RIR address policy forums will soon face the question of
whether to (de facto) allow provider independent address space for
end-users.
So _if_ IPv6 PI space is going to be a reality, we should do what we
can to limit the damage. The only way to do this is to make it possible
to filter out the PI prefixes at least in certain parts of the network
without getting in the way of reachability. The obvious way to do this
is to have an aggregate that tricks the packets into flowing towards a
place where the PI routing information is available in full. So the
solution to this problem is actually quite simple. The only tricky part
is optimizing things such that the extra distance the packets have to
travel is minimized.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf