[118132] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Mon Oct 12 23:07:32 2009
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:06:25 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AD3E230.4070404@rollernet.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbility.
>> Some networks are actually finally using multicast for IPTV services,
>> generating much larger number of entries than the global multicast table
>> would otherwise indicate.
>>
>
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming.
Lest anyone forget it has the same non-workable site-multihoming that
has allowed the internet to grow to the size it is today. by non-working
we mean not-better than ipv4.
We actually know how to run that network pain and all.
> The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multihoming, multicast, etc. is reality because
> the internet is now Very Serious Business for many, many people.
>
> Yes, I know there's hacks like SHIM6 and I don't wish to go OT into a
> debate about them, so I'll just say that if there had been a viable
> alternative to multihoming as we know it I think it would have been
> given a go before policy got pushed to the RIR's to allow IPv6 PI.
>
> ~Seth
>
