[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[GLOBAL-V6] Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
Hi Alain,
See below, in-line.
Also, see my previous email, I'm going to continue this discussion in a
single mail exploder. I think makes more sense ...
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:53:33 -0400
> Para: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, <ppml@arin.net>, <shim6@psg.com>
> Conversación: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> Asunto: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
>
> Wrt Jordi's proposal:
>
> I have sympathy to the idea of balancing PI need with routing table growth,
> however:
>
> A) if PI addresses are to be returned at some point in time, they loose a
> dreat deal of their value. Folks like PI because it shields them from
> renumbering.
My proposal offers a way to avoid that in most of the cases.
>
> B) any address reclaim process might be lenghty and costly
More than the cost in the routing tables ?
>
> C) given how long the shim6/multi homing has taken so far, it seems hazardous
> to make any bet that in 3 years it will be finish, implemented, adopted,
> deployed...
I'm not talking about 3 years, but about 3 years AFTER shim6 or/and other
solutions are deployable.
This also help to see this as a showstopper as you say in A).
>
> D) I am sensitive to the argument that v4 has not "melted" with PI, so why
> should v6 melt more? I believe the benefits of handing out PI *now* outweight
> the cost of a *small* swamp.
May be you're right, I'm not so convinced, having seen latest Geof and Jason
slides ... In the last IETF and also the last ARIN. I think is better to be
conservative given that, if we have a way to avoid being a showstopper for
the IPv6 deployment at the same time.
>
> E) given the state of v6 deployment now, I do not think there is much risk
> with this policy at this moment. And as Thomas relayed, this policy could be
> changed anyway if things get out of control.
Agree, but is not better to have a clear defined escape way now ? At least,
that's my view.
>
> F) if this means giving advantage to the early adopters by offering them PI, I
> look at this as a positive thing.
I believe is not the case according to my proposal, at least is what I have
tried.
>
> G) a key thing is to limit the size of the swamp that would be created, or
> more specifically limit its growth. So it might be a good idea to have a
> sunset clause in the policy, like it will have to be revisited in 2 years or
> when a certain allocation (or allocation rate) threshold will be reached.
Somehow it is what I'm defining: A sunset based on a technical solution
availability.
>
> - Alain.
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
