On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:03:24 +0000, "Sascha Luck" <ripe-lst@eirconnect.net> said:
And that, Ladies & Gentlemen, is exactly the point. No ISP/Telco/Hoster can be trusted. Hence, the requirement for multihoming in v4 today, and in v6 tomorrow. No amount of policy fiddling and idle discussion can change that fact.
[thought my last post had sarcasm written all over it ... nevermind] I don't disagree there's a need for (business requirements) multihoming. Allocation policies however have to reflect reality. There's a reason why we don't accept v4 micro-PI-allocations today (which is what this thread diverted to). Despite endless arguments we've managed to define a balanced policy that works for ipv4 (no need to start those arguments again). To those who want ipv6 deployed *now*; What is their relation to the term "business requirements"? Do they understand the difference between fiction and reality? Shim6&friends belong to the future, as does routing technology able to cope with a fragmented v6 addresspace. The only alternative *today* is to define a policy that has a fair balance between what's practically doable (DFZ size) and connectivity needs. Is it the numbers that are confusing policy-makers? With current v4 policies it's fairly easy to justify the need for a certain size address-block, and equally easy to check utilisation of allocated block. Obliously, with V6 nobody is going to fill a /[whatever] and "utilisation" becomes an irrelevant term. Could it be an alternative to require that V6 PI-holders document their use of the allocated block, and apply some form of hostcount that reflect the current V4 policy to justify their V6 allocation. //per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc