Leo,
On 2008-06-03 18:25, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 02/06/2008 11:24, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
...
>>> For all other
>>> cases it introduces a bias that has no science about it.
>>> In otherwords it introduces bias in 99.99999% of cases.
>>> It helps in 0.00001% of cases (and this is a generous estimate).
>> In IPv4 that may be so. In the IPv6 model, which is still PA-based
>> and multiprefix, it's far from true.
>
> I'm not sure that the reality of IPv6 prefix distribution is that it is
> PA-based. A quick look at the statistics published by AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN
> and LACNIC (RIPE doesn't have a PIv6 policy yet) shows that about 1000
> prefixes are /32 or shorter while about 275 are /40 or longer.
I don't deny that some registries have started allocating PI prefixes
for large sites. That doesn't make PI the default model for small and
medium multi-homed IPv6 sites, which is where our scaling problem will
lie.
I agree with Mike St Johns that this should be discussed on IPv6 lists,
except for the uncomfortable fact that RFC 3484 makes recommendations
for IPv4 too. Maybe the Internet Area can consider that aspect?
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf