On 5-apr-05, at 14:40, Gert Doering wrote:
The IETF has worked long and hard on multihoming without PI. It would be superbly stupid to throw all of that away with the finish line in sight and forever increase the cost of routing just so lazy people can get away with hardcoding IPv6 addresses in their access lists.
I'm not sure how this ongoing discussion relates to *access lists*?
They make renumbering hard. Many people want PI so they don't have to renumber.
We're talking about networks like:
- large-scale networks that have only BGP customers that already have their own address space (so "no 200 /48 given to customers")
How is this different from any other end-user?
- 3GPP networks that assign /64s (so it's no "/48s" given to customers)
I don't want no stinking /64. Give me a /48.
- smallish ISPs that could be a good driver for new IPv6 products (because they are not old, rusty, and refusing anything new) but do not yet have 200 customers, but maybe 30 very large ones...
Show me some examples. I started an ISP with ~30 customers once and I don't think there are very many of those. They all tend to gravitate towards 0 customers or > 30 customers over time.
(In case you haven't noticed: there are a number of different policy proposals being discussed in parallel. Please put your attacks regarding "access-list lazyness" into the correct discussion, wherever that might be)
Daniel was talking about PI here. Are you saying the above examples should use PI rather than PA? Doesn't make much sense to me.