[75890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Nov 27 13:00:02 2004
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 09:59:30 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <633F907E-4099-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========B89DB42E1BDF254CBBFB==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI
> space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about anyone
> "should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation possible.
> PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a bigger mistake than all other
> IPv6 mistakes so far.
>
And v6 without PI for will not get widespread adoption.
Further, ULA will become de facto PI without aggregation. Hence my believe
that ULA is a bad idea, and, my recommendation that we face the reality =
that
PI is an important thing (unless we want to replicate the v4 NAT mess).
As such, I'd much rather see us develop sane PI policy than continue down
the present road.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========B89DB42E1BDF254CBBFB==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBqMCFn5zKWQ/iqj0RAkzKAJ9TC0w4PoAWIkBpXyagaXs6X2chfwCfXPr5
fNXBkaZFMob1UbIjCWCRzIY=
=YOdA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========B89DB42E1BDF254CBBFB==========--
