[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Florian Weimer fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Nov 16 19:55:56 CET 2005
* Wilfried Woeber: >>From that perspective I seem to see 2 aspects in the recent discussion: > > - you shall not receive address space for builing a service, you are to > buy that from some "big-folk". > > This is an intersting point of view, and taken to the extreme will > make us end up with a _very small_ number of _very big_ entities. > > Traditionally these things were called monopolies. Nothing I would be > too happy to see coming back ;-) Oligopolies is the term, I think. IPv6 addressing policy seems to be geared towards that. We know from the IPv4 experience that 20,000+ indepedent entities in the global routing table can be handled easily. So why not try to duplicate this success? > - there has been th discussion regarding "anycast" but isnt this just > a special(?) case of th PI-topic? It depends on the PI criteria. If slots in the global routing tables are kept in short supply *and* you get at most one if you aren't an ISP *and* you need to do IPv6 anycast, you might have a problem because you need two globally visible prefixes (one for your production network, one for anycast). But I think you are right that it makes sense to resolve the PI first, either negatively or positively.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]