[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Nils Ketelsen nils at steering-group.net
Fri Feb 25 20:37:46 CET 2005
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:25:25PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25-feb-05, at 19:12, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > >And now the next question: If a ccTLD NS gets a /32, why shouldn't a > >Authoratitative NS for a real big number of Domains (of a domain > >hoster, for > >example) get a /32? What is the difference between a ccTLD Nameserver > >and > >any other authoritative NS? > > And if a big nameserver gets a /32, why doesn't a bank? I mean, most > people value getting at their money more than getting at their > homepage. > > But if the bank gets to multihome, then why not large etailers? > > And if the large ones get to, what about the medium-sized ones? That is exactly my point, yes. > >I think the problem is not, that ccTLD Nameservers do not get a > >assignment, > >the problem is much more general: Addresses are assigned in the way > >that > >suits ISPs quite nicely but for sites is a major pain in the rear end. > > ISPs know that keeping the routing infrastructure working is very > important. End-users generally don't. This approach has two major flaws: 1. If a Service Provider starts to decide what is good for his customers and what they should not get, their business is usually at their end of life. As long as ISPs do whats good for them, instead of what their customers want, in the IPv6 world, IPv6 stays a provider toy. 2. You try to solve a technical problem with policies, which works as well as trying to fix politics with technical solutions. I have said it more then once and I still believe it: Routers will be able to handle Billions of routing table entries long before anyone will invest huge amounts of money to migrate his current infrastructure to a new one that provides far less features. > >As long as this does not change IPv6 will stay what it is today: A nice > >platform for testing and playing without any business relevance. > And if we give everyone PI IPv6 will probably blow up even sooner than > IPv4 so we can start again from scratch. If you don't, you will have a small routing table and no customers sending any packets you can route. Nils -- Would you like to play a game?