I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Fred Baker]

>> Overall document:
>> Given that even huge ASes will only originate a small number of
>> prefixes in v6 compared to dozens to hundreds in v4 now, what problem
>> exactly is this trying to fix?
> 
> That depends entirely on user sites and ISPs following good (CIDR-like)
> practice. So I think encouraging that is the useful goal of this draft.

Which is where the draft is trying to go.

>> As long as getting PI space is bound to getting or having an AS I don't
>> really see the scaling problem.
> 
> Well, unless it encourages a gold rush on AS numbers.

>> The danger of every corner shop in the world trying to get PI is not
>> actually there IMHO.
> 
> Again, I hope you're correct, but why not document the fact that it's
> highly undesirable?

We are in fact seeing quite a growth in AS numbers and in requests for PI allocation. You might look at

     http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asn16/

The growth rate of the AS number space is not spiking up per se, but it is non-linear, with increases in rate circa 2000 (with the dot-com bubble bursting, there was an increase in the assignment rate of AS numbers) and 2009-2010. I would imagine these are not "to get PI space" but "to multihome using BGP". If anything, I see that as the argument for solutions like ILNP or NAT66 (the draft, which does stateless prefix translation, not the idea of making stateful IPv6/IPv6 network ADDRESS translators). They enable the transit operators to view their networks as PA while their customers view themselves as pseudo-PI. Yes, it has issues similar to those described in RFC 2993.