[131794] 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 02:14:12 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Fm5V0ZksZfUFrLrf=Liz63zEbMyeN7vWk1M7i@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 23:11:13 -0700
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>=20
> 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
I understand how they rationalized the cop-out. Now, getting back to the
real world...
Owen
