[151389] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel jaeggli)
Sun Mar 18 12:29:56 2012
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:28:23 -0700
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <C3E40320-F428-4721-8036-625D206578AE@muada.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/12/12 08:56 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>>> Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process + Need for multihoming +
>>> Got tired of waiting = 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.
Recall that from the outset (e.g. long before shim6) some of the very
early pi prefixes to be assigned were done to organizations which are
not internet service providers in any traditional sense.
2001:490::/32 not an isp...
2001:420::/32 not an isp...
having received an assignment under the then existing policy it was not
hard for large corporate or academic network operators to describe
themselves as LIRs.
Morever no-one batted an eye when I deaggregated a /32 into /36s we can
hem and haw for a long about the possible prefix count and where one
draws the line but it's been a consideration since the begining. If the
fundamental distinction for who got a pi prefix and who didn't is scale,
well there are a lot of ISPS that are small.
That camel had it's nose under the tent from day one.
