[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]


> Eliot Lear wrote:
> I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address
> space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem.
> So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory
> (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if
> customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up
> right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this
> happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to
> large size businesses who have the power of the purse.

I raised this very issue a long time ago, but that is not the worst
problem we have. Finish the reasoning down that same path:

- Sites will get unaggregatable portable /48s.
- Their wallet will get them routed.
- Everyone is happy, no renumbering issues, multihoming is possible.

So, everyone will spend 5 bucks registering their /48, some (the ones
that currently have an AS or will request one) will actually announce
it, and we're all fat and happy. Until the GRT reaches 10k (and probably
until it reaches 50k by the time that happens given better hardware) it
won't be a concern.

What happens next is more interesting. Re-using some wording I have read
yesterday, this will become a self-regulating system, meaning that only
those who can afford it will be able to announce their /48 after some

The question is: in 5 or 10 years, what are these people that are
running production networks configured with addresses that they own
going to do when they can't announce their prefix anymore? Bingo,
welcome to NATv6.

Replacing site-locals with NATv6. Think about it.


IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com