[75891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sat Nov 27 13:12:36 2004
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1101549570@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:12:01 +0100
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 27-nov-04, at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
So what would be a sane PI policy? Apparently you don't want ULAs
becoming de facto PI without aggregation, so do you agree that we need
aggregation for PI?
