nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:16:28 -0700
On Mar 12, 2012, at 8:56 AM, 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 PIA 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. Of course as has been the case over and over the argument "if you give us feature X we'll implement IPv6" has never borne out.
Except it didn't happen that way. The argument wasn't "If you give us PI, we'll implement IPv6." The argument that carried the day and is, IMHO, quite valid was "If you don't give us PI we definitely WON'T implement IPv6." The inability to obtain PI was a serious detractor from IPv6 for any organization that already had IPv4 PI. Shim6 showed no promise whatsoever of changing this even in its most optimistic marketing predictions at the time. (As you point out, it was well underway at that point and it's not as if we didn't look at it prior to drafting the policy proposal.) Frankly, I think the long term solution is to implement IDR based on Locators in the native packet header and not using map/encap schemes that reduce MTU, but that doesn't seem to be a popular idea so far.
Also given that people understand what PI space is and how it works and indeed it does pretty much just work for the end users of the space.The trouble is that it doesn't scale. Which is fine right now at the current IPv6 routing table size, but who knows what the next decades bring. We've been living with IPv4 for 30 years now, and IPv6 doesn't have a built-in 32-bit expiry date so it's almost certainly going to be around for much longer.
If IPv6 works out in the 1.6-2:1 prefix:ASN ratio that I expect or even as much as 4:1, we'll get at least another 30 years out of it. Since we've had IPv6 now for about 15 years, it's already half way through that original 30. :p Owen
Current thread:
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary, (continued)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)
- RE: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Leo Vegoda (Mar 09)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Mukom Akong T. (Mar 11)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 11)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Joel jaeggli (Mar 11)
- Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 11)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Doug Barton (Mar 11)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Robert E. Seastrom (Mar 12)
- RE: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Leigh Porter (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Joel jaeggli (Mar 18)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Joel jaeggli (Mar 11)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Seth Mos (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Seth Mos (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 12)
- Message not available
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Tim Chown (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary William Herrin (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 12)
- Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Ćukasz Bromirski (Mar 12)
- Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary Owen DeLong (Mar 09)