Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I think this hit the nail on the head. Providers (especially those non-LIR) will not accept something along the lines of SHIM6 or A.N.Other competing idea until it gives them just that -- INBOUND ROUTING INDEPENDENCE.
Now you are mixing two issues that Per separated though. Per pointed out that shim6 is work in progress while we need a policy now.
Kurt, I agree with you they are separate concerns, however as I pointed out they must be addressed similarly if IPv6 is to be adopted on any meaningful scale. I think as far as possible policies should speak to the assumed use and be extensible rather than a stopgap - "we do it this way now, but we now its not good and will change". My point was that yes SHIM6 is a work-in-progress but is not a solution that non-LIR providers will accept willingly; many would rather welcome doomsday of no more address space than work with something that limits their independence. Addressing previous criticisms, As far as the recurring argument of investment to support growing routing tables and memory requirements - how many of you had this when specifying individual hosts? Why can't every server just have the 64K Bill Gates promised would be enough? And wait, didn't he also say the Internet wasn't worth worrying about? Routing equipment will grow and adapt to the technical needs and business will have to fund it or send their customers elsewhere, its an evolution not something we all have to be protected from. (Not that RIPE is a place to dictate business cases and budgets anyway...) Can anyone digest for me into simple bullet points the other arguments for not allowing end site multihoming (and possibly PI therefore), other than: a) routing table size and therefore equipment concerns b) growing/padding RIPE membership numbers c) other immature solutions which border on NAT-insanity which don't actually address the independence angle I see the a) and c) above as cosmetic and easy to work around, and i think that b) would only be a good thing (tm) as all our fees drop with more members. Otherwise I can't see any more limiting factors to running it almost the same way as v4, instead of multiple prefixes per applicant its one. -- Best Regards, Cameron Gray Director, Netegral Limited www.netegral.co.uk | 0871 277 6845