IPv6 PI allocation

[Niels Bakker]

* itojun at itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0) [Thu 17 May 2007, 12:50 CEST]:
>hmm.  i have an RFC on it (RFC3178, Oct 2001), which uses two 
>provider-aggregatable prefixes from two separate ISPs for multi-homing. 
>with IPv6, it is a common practice for router(s) announcing multiple 
>prefixes, right?
>i hoped that RFC3178 would stop PI allocations, but at that time people 
>just did not get it.  i was lucky enough that the document made it 
>to informational RFC level.

RFC3178-style multihoming will create more entries in the global routing 
table once a network using that connects to an IXP.

Portability is also a reason for obtaining PI space (the I is the 
keyword here), which you won't get with RFC3178 as long as people filter 
the more-specific announcements to avoid routing table bloat.

[..]

I'm not sure why you propose tunneling packets over TCP (OpenSSH) as a 
solution to IPv6 multihoming, the drawbacks are rather obvious to me.


	-- Niels.