North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 -Unique local addresses)
- From: Tim Franklin
- Date: Mon Nov 01 12:27:32 2010
> This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
> people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
> with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
> stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
> of end-sites on the Internet are residential ones, and that PI can
> scale to that number of end-sites. I can't see any other way to
> interpret "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the
> other options just don't make sense".
OK, sorry, I think we're addressing different points of the same comment.
I was looking very much at the second half of "all residential users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't break", ie the reason *why* they'd want PI. I assumed that was "disappears" as in "has an outage", rather than goes bust, user changes ISP etc - and if you've only got one ISP, you don't need PI or ULA to have *local* connectivity work through an ISP outage.
I agree, on the current routing platforms we have, PI for every end site is insanity. Whether we should be looking for routing platforms (or a different architecture - LISP?) that allows PI for every end user is a different question...
Regards,
Tim.
|
