[131790] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Wed Nov 3 20:23:25 2010
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT."
<951ECB05-1C34-4902-992B-944CE88466C2@delong.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:21:26 -0400
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1288830086_10031P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
> > it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
> > used with PA.
> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there.
It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*.
Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in
the IPv6 routing table? Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start
using PI prefixes? (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an
ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?)
--==_Exmh_1288830086_10031P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFM0fyGcC3lWbTT17ARApUGAJ0dn04i8Ah9IUGOi40fIGs9TALcMQCfd9Sp
dtd/8N+FMfIsIZhwS5DBeqg=
=hyO2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1288830086_10031P--
