Marshall, > I do not really agree with this. First, the routing tables do not care > if you have PI or PA space, just whether > it is announced or not. If you are already announcing PA space, and > getting into the DFZ, it does not harm the tables if you change to PI > space. Sure. But I understood Michael has nothing now, so from his point of view its a question of getting either PI from ARIN or PA from his provider. > Second, one of reasons I helped to write and push through ARIN 2002-3 > (micro assignments) was that I felt that small multi-homers (i.e., > enterprises that were multi-homed but did not need large address > allocations) did not constitute a threat to the routing tables, and > that has been borne out by experience. Neither the growth nor the > bloat in the routing tables is being driven by small multi-homers. > This has been discussed at great length on ARIN PPML and other lists. > > Yes, I gave numbers to Vince Fuller about millions of multi-homers, > but that was to set an upper bound on the process. I do no believe > that every small business will rush out and multi-home, no matter how > automated BGP becomes. The small businesses that I know that > multi-home (mostly high traffic volume companies providing network > services, such as video streaming) have a business need to do so, and > it is not realistic nor in my opinion proper to assume that they will > not be able to do so, one way or the other. Ok, I stand corrected. I did not realize this option was available to the smaller entities. (But is that for IPv4, or does it apply to IPv6, too?) >> There is ongoing work to try to design a better >> routing system that would be capable of keeping >> tens of millions of prefixes or more, in the IRTF. >> If and when that work succeeds, it would be possible >> to allocate everyone their own PI prefix. We are >> not there yet. >> >> In any case, FWIW, I think it would make sense for RIR >> address allocation rules to allow IPv6-only operations >> and not just those that need both IPv4 and IPv6 address >> space. > > I fully agree here. In fact, I would say that IPv6 will have truly > succeeded when business requests start coming in > that do _not_ want IPv4 space. This should be encouraged, not > discouraged. Yep. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf