On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Joćo Damas
<joao@bondis.org> wrote:
On 9 Aug 2011, at 18:25, Jim Reid wrote:
Small intermission.
>
> Please explain Sascha. I just don't get it. IPv6 deployment isn't hindered by the availability of PI space. At least not in the general case. Can you give some actual examples where a problem getting PI IPv6 space has (or is) a showstopper for IPv6 deployment?
There are people who clearly sustain the opposite so this is not a statement that has been without challenges which mostly seem to be grounded on the needs of enterprises. Particularly because they can get this in IPv4 and how do you sell anyone a technology that gives you "less" than the previous one?
>
>> This policy change is about NOTHING else than aligning the IPv6 PI policy with
>> the IPv4 PI policy we have for ages.
>
> That's all very well. However it may be the answer to the wrong question. Suppose we didn't have IPv4 PI space at all. Would we invent this concept for IPv6? If so, why? If not, why not?
>
Problem is, Jim, we do have IPv4 PI, and people compare fruits.
Joao
The address akkocation liberty of the early Internet can not kept any more, because it does not scale!!!
CIDR (and PA!) was introduced exactly to limit the growth of the routing table!
The real problem for a hosting company is load balancing and not the Provider Aggregated IPv6 address space!
Renumbering in IPv6 is not painless, however it can be done, even for a hosting company in case if it would be realy needed in the future...
Thanks,
Geza