nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:18:06 +0100
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 09:05 -0800, David Barak wrote: [..]
Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N hosts? If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s. It would be a really long time before we had as many routes in the table as we do today, let alone the umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so badly.
Today indeed, but you are missing the point that IPv6 should last for the couple of next decennia. In IPv4 the starters also got a nice /8 as a bonus and the result: new small entities complaining that the first ones got the cool stuff and they can't have any. You might have noticed the 32-bit ASN talk. This is there for a reason: ASN's will go to 32bit mode. Can you say 4 million routes? :) Simple isn't always good. The KISS principle doesn't always work... The current 30k in-use ASN's (afaik they are even less) will and can explode when that means you can get easy address space. Btw, this is policy talk, you might want to bring that to ARIN PPML or the various other lists. If you want to propose a PI policy, then please make a decent proposal and send the relevant RIR group. That endsites require "PI" is inevitable, but the way those routes end up in the routing tables and the amount of address space each endsite is getting should be relevant to need, not to the fact that you got an ASN. (Which would mean I would qualify for 2x /32's... which is very silly as the couple of /48's I use is way more than enough. Please don't mix up addressing and routing. "PI addressing" as you mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick. Greets, Jeroen (who simply would like a policy where endsites that want it could request a /48 or /40 depending on requirements from a dedicated block which one day might be used for identity purposes and not pop up in the bgp tables or whatever we have then anymore....)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne), (continued)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Christian Kuhtz (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) bmanning (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)