Quoting RFC2860 [Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt]
tony.li at tony.li
Mon Sep 27 22:57:18 CEST 2010
> How do you define "mildly?"
I would derive it: overall, we need to come up with a routing architecture that grows the table no more than 9%/yr. Looking at the roles within the topology, which roles grow more than 9%/yr? Certainly single-homed end-sites do. Dual-homed end-sites would also seem to do so. Top-level ISPs do not.
> I think the "best" answer is obvious, find a magic solution to the routing table problem, and give everyone PI. Since that's not likely to happen, we need to figure out a way to give as many people PI as possible.
I'd suggest that a scalable routing architecture is a higher priority than giving people PI. While PI is convenient, not having routing is simply fatal.
> BTW, "the issue" with PI is not just multi-homing, it's also portability. In my conversations with folks about this (going all the way back to when I was at ICANN and talking to serious people about how to get IPv6 deployed sooner), enterprises that have PI IPv4 now won't even consider IPv6 without PI.
Except for a few early adopters, transitioning to IPv6 is going to be a hassle and not free. Most people will not do so unless they absolutely have to.
More information about the ipv6-ops