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

Tony Li tony.li at tony.li
Mon Sep 27 23:35:28 CEST 2010

Hi Doug,

> I've said it before, but I think it bears repeating in this context. Either the operators get everything they have now in IPv4, or the answer is going to be more v4 NAT, not IPv6. (I.e., go with the devil you know.) Of course, by your criteria that's fine, since it also solves the routing problem.

Um, no, that's not fine.  V4 routing has scalability problems too, it's just substantially better than v6 right now.

Selling people on v6 by selling them PI is not a sound strategy.  We can't do that with everyone, and doing so up front will simply create an issue with the haves and have-nots down the road.

If it helps, my vision for the end state is pretty simple:

- We use ILNP (or similar) for v6 to decouple locators from identifiers.  
- We simplify renumbering to make that tractable.
- We aggregate aggressively to keep the table size down.

As ILNP is going to take a long time to develop and deploy, we need to aggregate aggressively now to not create the v6 swamp and to buy us time in case ILNP is not a panacea.

In this end state, the multi-homed end site can easily renumber and change providers.  Their multiple connections provide them resilient connectivity, up to and including session continuity.  And this is all doable with multiple PA addresses, so we end up with adequate routing scalability.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list