Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit

[S.P.Zeidler]

Hi,

Thus wrote Fred Baker (fred at cisco.com):

> The issue with straight PI addressing is the issue that causes people to 
> wonder about the size of the route table. If you have never heard the 
> observation that "routing doesn't scale", I'm amazed. The thing that 
> makes routing "not scale", and so drives memory volumes and their  
> implied costs, both capex and opex, is that PI places a prefix on every 
> thing that can be routed to (now on the order of 10^6, within the decade 
> on the order of 10^7, per Marshall Eubanks' analysis at NANOG) as opposed 
> to the number of entities that require routing to (autonomous systems or 
> something like them, O(10^5)).

I don't see that following, at least not with a sane PI assignment policy.
PI space being available does not mean that there would be no more PA at all.

What I -do- see following is that an entity can be/have an autonomous system
without being an ISP (and without needing a /32), many of them being
autonomous systems already in v4, and not willing to give up their routing
independence to add v6.

Also, most ASs would only announce one prefix instead of the zoo most
keep today.

regards,
	spz
-- 
spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)