[131792] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Nov 4 01:34:38 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <11740.1288830086@localhost>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:31:11 -0700
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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.
>=20
>> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue =
there.
>=20
> It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*.
>=20
> 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?)
>=20
Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up =
with a
scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not
sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.
Owen
