North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Mon Sep 12 06:59:12 2005
On 12-sep-2005, at 4:55, Matthew Petach wrote:
> And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough.
What requirements do you have that are fundamentally incompatible
with using multiple addresses?
There are a few corner cases that fall through the cracks in today's
policies. A content network like you describe would be one, a transit
ISP with customers that all have their own addresses would be
another: where would they get the IPv6 addresses to number their
How would a default-free content provider with 1000+ peering sessions
be handled? Would they be treated as an ISP, even though they have no
downstreams, and get PI space?
However, the number of such networks is so incredibly small that
whatever happens to them is completely insignificant with regard to
scalability. Still, we need a decent policy for these cases, and JUST
these cases but not random people who'd also like a /32.
Or would you expect them to get prefixes from every peer they have,
and configure several hundred IP addresses on each server?
Getting address space from a peer doesn't make much sense. But
99.999% of all content networks have 1 or more ISPs that they can get
address space from and then announce to any peers.
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so
I don't know if this makes a difference.
The whole point of IPv6 is that we have a technology that will allow
our networks to grow for decades to come. Importing IPv4 mistakes
defeats the purpose.
Ok, let's see... which is more important to keep the internet
running, a routing table that fits in our routers, or acl monkeys
that get to go home at 5?
ACLs are already enough of a hassle with one
IP address per host.