On 23-nov-04, at 13:03, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
To offer true provider-independence, we would need to offer long-term, renewable assignments of IP address prefixes directly to enterprises, similar to the "swamp space" in IPv4, but perhaps with an annual fee required to allow recapturing unused prefixes. Although this appears ont he surface to be a policy issue, the reason that we don't do this today is that it would cause unchecked growth of the global routing tables and the eventual collapse of the Internet. To avoid this technical problem, we would need to find a way to individually route a very large number of prefixes. At the moment, though, we don't have a generally accepted solution to this problem.
Well, if you put it like that, doesn't it make sense to simply generally accept a solution to this problem?
I'm starting to be convinced (see recent NANOG discussions) that the operator community isn't all that impressed with the multi6 efforts to make multihoming possible with provider-derived addresses. It looks like the RIR address policy forums will soon face the question of whether to (de facto) allow provider independent address space for end-users.
So _if_ IPv6 PI space is going to be a reality, we should do what we can to limit the damage. The only way to do this is to make it possible to filter out the PI prefixes at least in certain parts of the network without getting in the way of reachability. The obvious way to do this is to have an aggregate that tricks the packets into flowing towards a place where the PI routing information is available in full. So the solution to this problem is actually quite simple. The only tricky part is optimizing things such that the extra distance the packets have to travel is minimized.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf