[131676] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Mon Nov 1 12:07:23 2010
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:37:12 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org>
In-Reply-To: <15194720.01288607071359.JavaMail.root@jennyfur.pelican.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 +0000 (GMT)
Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org> wrote:
> > Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough
> > that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential
> > users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't
> > break?
>
> I've seen this last point come up a few times, and I really don't get it.
>
> If you're multihomed with multiple PA GUAs, yes, you'd want each RA to track its corresponding WAN availability so your devices are using a prefix that has connectivity.
>
> If you're a single-homed leaf network, why on earth wouldn't you want to generate RAs for your statically-assigned prefix all the time, regardless of the state of your WAN connection?
>
This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
of end-sites on the Internet are residential ones, and that PI can
scale to that number of end-sites. I can't see any other way to
interpret "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the other
options just don't make sense".
Regards,
Mark.
