Quoting RFC2860 [Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt]

Michael Sinatra michael at rancid.berkeley.edu
Mon Sep 27 19:01:24 CEST 2010

On 09/27/10 09:08, Tony Li wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>>> Agreed.  Once again, we are trying to agree on an addressing
>>> architecture, not policy.
>> The statement "*you* get your own globally visible chunk of address
>> space, and *you* don't" sounds very much like what we have in our
>> policy documents.
> Well, the significant distinction that we're trying to make is based
> on topology.  We leave the judgement calls to the policy makers, as
> that WOULD be policy.

I think I see where I am missing a point of the draft here.  Consider 
the example of a small ISP that provides v4/v6 dial-up services (and 
maybe even runs a v6 tunnel broker) for rural customers.  They are 
single-homed.  From a topological perspective, they look exactly like an 
end site, despite the fact that they provide services to a lot of 
independent customers.  OTOH, a large corporation that has several 
campuses and is multi-homed definitely looks like a service provider 
topologically, even though it is only providing services to itself.

For me, who sometimes looks at these things economically, the former is 
a service provider and the latter is an end site.  Topologically, the 
former is an end site and the latter is a service provider.

Would it clarify things to recommend that single-homed entities get PA 
and multi-homed get PI rather than use the more loaded distinction 
between service providers and end sites, or is that not the intent of 
the draft?

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list