[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Wed Jun 29 21:19:12 CEST 2011
On 29 June 2011 20:04, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote: > James, > > I know this has been discussed several times, but I can't stop myself... > > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 14:50 +0100, James Blessing wrote: >> A single IPv6 route will consume 4 x the space of a v4 route, whilst >> we are in the transition phase between v4 and v6 and having to >> allocate memory to both protocols adding potentially the equivalent to >> 70k to the routing table 'just because its easier' doesn't strike me >> as the most sensible thing to do in the world. > > My understanding is that routing table growth is largely fueled by > traffic engineering rather than multihoming. So while routing table > growth is a concern, PI policies are probably not a large factor. True, but thats no excuse to pour fuel onto the fire. >> Transition between 2 IPv6 suppliers (unlike IPv4) "shouldn't" require >> the same level of manual reconfiguration due IPv6's complexity crying >> out for some form of automation in its deployment in the first place. >> What I believe we should be looking at is education of the differences >> between v4 and v6 rather than changing policy. > > My further understanding is that desire for PI is mostly for > non-technical reasons. I don't think anything can make this motivation > go away. Companies want it. Okay but the point about the allocation of resources is that it should be done for technical rather than just pure business/political/paranoid reasons. Everyone is saying that IPv6 will 'last forever' but they said the same thing about oil too J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]