[131679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Franklin)
Mon Nov 1 12:27:12 2010
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:27:08 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tim Franklin <tim@pelican.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <8023684.141288628720636.JavaMail.root@jennyfur.pelican.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> 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".
OK, sorry, I think we're addressing different points of the same comment.
I was looking very much at the second half of "all residential users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't break", ie the reason *why* they'd want PI. I assumed that was "disappears" as in "has an outage", rather than goes bust, user changes ISP etc - and if you've only got one ISP, you don't need PI or ULA to have *local* connectivity work through an ISP outage.
I agree, on the current routing platforms we have, PI for every end site is insanity. Whether we should be looking for routing platforms (or a different architecture - LISP?) that allows PI for every end user is a different question...
Regards,
Tim.
