[82115] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andre Oppermann)
Fri Jul 8 15:58:55 2005
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:23:59 +0200
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>, Alexei Roudnev <alex@relcom.net>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <f5d074c399cf3e6dfa3603a0d8885d73@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2005, at 08:27, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
>> Err... So you want to protect the incumbent ISP's? Even those once
>> started off with 200 customers. Who is going to decide if some (today)
>> small ISP is worthy of receiving its own PA space or not?
>
> Pretty much any ISP is capable of obtaining their own PA space under
> current RIR policies, regardless of size. The prohibition on PA space is
> to end sites, not ISPs.
I know but I was responding to Iljitsch who told us:
# Address allocation is unsustainable but that's not IPv6's fault: it's done the same way
# (or even worse) in IPv4. But somehow the industry as a whole seems incapable of
# recognizing that having each and every ISP with 200 customers (not even that in
# AfriNIC/LACNIC regions), no matter how regional/local, occupy a place at the top of the
# global addressing hierarchy is a flawed idea.
> The myth that only large, established ISPs are able to obtain PA IPv6
> address space really needs to disappear.
It was about a spot in the global routing table. No matter if one gets
PA or PI they get a routing table entry in the DFZ. There is no way around
it other than to make the routing protocols more scaleable.
--
Andre
