[address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Dec 12 11:13:17 CET 2011
On 12/12/2011 09:03, Randy Bush wrote: > he is saying that we have long experience of what causes routing table > bloat and that we are about to repeat a mistake we made once already. that's exactly what I'm saying, except for the context in which I say it: we need to repeat the mistake of PI for ipv6 because there are no good alternatives for small-site v6 multihoming, and while historical context has shown us that routing bloat is a problem, it's a problem which was and remains manageable for at least v4 I still maintain my position on 2011-02 that removing the multihoming requirement is not a good idea because we no longer have the {address counting | multihoming} limiters which act as natural barriers in the case of ipv4 PI assignments. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]