[131793] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Thu Nov 4 02:02:51 2010
In-Reply-To: <E2ACB6F9-F8A3-43CA-8EE3-9F725D88B83E@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 02:02:44 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>>> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue t=
here.
>>
>> 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 entrie=
s in
>> the IPv6 routing table? =A0Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama=
start
>> using PI prefixes? =A0(Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of u=
sing an
>> ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?)
>>
> Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up wi=
th 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.
because:
1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's
b) every end site gets PA only
iii) no need for pi
d) all of the above
