[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lea Roberts
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Mon Nov 21 18:41:04 CET 2005
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Lea Roberts wrote: > <snip> > > the problem with using ASNs is that when you think over the projected > > lifetime of IPv6, there will be *lots* of ASNs. Note that the 4-byte ASN > > draft is entering the standards track in IETF. Don't think that tying PI > > to ASNs is anything more that passing the problem to the next generation > > (if that long... :-) > > > > It would seem obvious that as network connectivity becomes essential for > > doing business, it must be reliable. It is unwise to carry forward the > > IPv4 multi-homing model for network resilience with just faith that the > > system will be able to scale to an ever larger number of routes. IPv6 has > > so far failed to deliver on its original promise of seamless renumbering > > and multi-homing using multiple prefixes. The hard problems still need to > > be solved in a way that can scale for decades to come. > > Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI? > They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are > doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space. <snip> Well said.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]