[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

[Jørgen Hovland <]

----- 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.


Joergen Hovland