[151124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Mar 12 11:58:14 2012
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <D181DDABABE57E4DB72FEE00331478644E2176@EALPO1.ukbroadband.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:56:17 +0100
To: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
>> Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
>> +
>> Need for multihoming
>> +
>> Got tired of waiting
>> =3D
>> IPv6 PI
> A perfect summation.
Except that it didn't happen in that order. When ARIN approved PI the =
shim6 effort was well underway, but it was too early to be able to know =
to what degree it would solve the multihoming problem. Earlier, when =
multi6 was stuck or later, when shim6, at least as a specification, but =
preferably as multiple implementations, could have been evaluated would =
both have been reasonable times to decide to go for PI instead.
Of course as has been the case over and over the argument "if you give =
us feature X we'll implement IPv6" has never borne out.
> Also given that people understand what PI space is and how it works =
and indeed it does pretty much just work for the end users of the space.
The trouble is that it doesn't scale. Which is fine right now at the =
current IPv6 routing table size, but who knows what the next decades =
bring. We've been living with IPv4 for 30 years now, and IPv6 doesn't =
have a built-in 32-bit expiry date so it's almost certainly going to be =
around for much longer.=
