[131646] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Oct 31 15:10:30 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin+-UAMkGJK+ktnexTmNb0O-k_NBN7u93-1zAK8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:10:18 -1000
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have =
happened..."
>> Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have =
this problem, either.
> ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab, =
nothing permanent.
Seems to me the options are:
1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing =
table bloat
2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing table =
bloat
3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost, no =
routing table bloat
Folks appear to have voted with their feet that (2) isn't really viable =
-- they got that particular T-shirt with IPv4 and have been uniformly =
against getting the IPv6 version, at last as far as I can tell.
My impression (which may be wrong) is that with respect to (1), a) most =
folks can't justify a PI request to the RIR, b) most folks don't want to =
deal with the RIR administrative hassle, c) most ISPs would prefer to =
not have to replace their routers. =20
That would seem to leave (3).
Am I missing an option?
Regards,
-drc
