Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

[Geoff Huston <]

At 03:37 AM 29/11/2005, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Florian Weimer" fw@localhost
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 4:00 PM
>
>
> > * Jeroen Massar:
> >
> > > > 1. Make /32 the only routable entity so we can use perfect match in
> > > >    the DFZ instead of longest-prefix match.
> > > What about the organizations that have say a /19, want them to inject
> > > all their more specific /32's?
> > You can inject a /19 as 8192 /32s.  Shouldn't make a difference if the
> > /19 is really used.
> >
> > At this stage, it's probably not too wise to embed the /32--/48--/64
> > in silicon, but vendors will undoubtedly do this if they can save a
> > few bucks and current policies remain as inflexible as they are.
> Hi,
> Perfect match is faster but far from better. What I think perhaps would be 
> interesting to see in the future with regards to IPv6 and PI is the following:
>
> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix.
> 2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and take 
> their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce it as a 
> more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer decides to get 
> multiple providers, then the network operator with the /32 could also 
> announce a more specific.
>
> In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my phone 
> number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to do that 
> with internet providers?
> Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat with 
> todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be able to 
> handle that hence rule #1.

Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the limit 
of deployed capability of routing.

Then what?

   Geoff