Hi, On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 08:50:55PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
ok children. enough.
Indeed. Please bring the discussion somewhat back into focus. The proposal on the table does not introduce IPv6 PI, so this is not the question we need to discuss. The proposal at hand will neither help nor harm the IPv4 routing table, so this is also *not* the question to discuss. What we do need to make up our collective minds is: - do we want to see IPv6 deployed? (some of the comments can be read as "let's not deploy IPv6, because the IPv4 routing table is already too large!" - and I'm not convinced that this line of reasoning is conclusive) - do we think that the group of networks that would get IPv6 PI under the changed policy, but can't get IPv6 PI now is... a) large enough that it makes a difference regarding IPv6 deployment? b) small enough to avoid exploding the routing table? As for "b)", the numbers given by Alex Le Heux set a certain upper boundary for the number of IPv6 PI prefixes to expect - if every user of an IPv4 PI routing table slot today (in the RIPE region) will get an IPv6 PI block, we're "in the 10.000s" of routes, but not "in the millions". So we have some numbers. What we don't have right now is the number of IPv4 PI routes that are single-homed vs. IPv4 PI routes that are multihomed ("in a way that it can be seen from the vantage points used"). Maybe the RIPE NCC can help with some more numbers here. I purposely stay *out* of the discussion "why do people want IPv6 PI?" - if there are good reasons for IPv6 PI for single-homed networks, I think this is something the proposer should try to convince the WG of, but not the WG chairs. Gert Doering, APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279