Hi Nico, I agree that ordinary subscribers would probably not request Internet redundancy. Hence, no need for PI. But just small businesses could drive the Internet table well beyond what is possible for hardware in this century. Unfortunately, Nobody is interested in the 3rd alternative: to fix current protocols (primarily ND and Source Address Selection on the host) to support PAs from many Carriers at the same time. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Nico Schottelius [mailto:nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch] Sent: Friday, December 24, 2021 12:20 AM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Cc: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org>; Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>; Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net>; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was: Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83) Hey Eduard, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> writes:
There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and fees. It is the size of the Internet table.
While the size of the global table is a concern, using it as an argument for reducing access to global IPv6 addresses feels wrong to me. For the sake of the routing table, it would be best if only a handful of companies are in the Internet, the best would be very centralised Internet at a single location.
From my perspective, this is the opposite of how the Internet is supposed to work - in a robust and decentralised fashion.
Keeping the global routing table manageable is a valid concern, but I don't think it's a good argument for preventing organisations to get their own /48 and connect to the Internet. Aside from that, it is probably not realistic that billions of users are opting in for getting a) their unique address space and b) getting and connected to the global Internet. Best regards, Nico -- Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch