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

[Elmar K. Bins]

nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote:

> On 27/09/2010 23:35, Tony Li wrote:
> >Selling people on v6 by selling them PI is not a sound strategy.
> 
> People are not being sold v6 on the basis of PI availability.  It is true, though, 
> that before v6 PI was available, the lack of it was one of the hurdles to widespread 
> ipv6 deployment.  But it was just one of many.

A pretty big hurdle. People/businesses do not want to lose the advantages
of their current network structure due to a change in the addressing scheme.
In fact, they more or less expect (the tech-savvy expect worse, of course)
the network to work like before. That means *including* their provisions
for fail-safety and redundancy.

So, telling someone to go v6, but without the multihoming they are used
to, they depend on, and their SLAs are based upon, is a way to keep them
from v6, and to incourage them to spread the word that "v6 will make
everything worse and break the Internet".

Careful: I'm talking current PI holders here.


> The only thing that will drive people to ipv6 is a situation where ipv4 connectivity 
> sucks so horribly that they have no alternative but to move - imho.

Many people probably think of residential (or mobile) end-users here and
believe that if those complain enough, the world will change.

Reality tells us that...

  - end-users do not get to chose much in way of their ISP supporting IPv6;
    their influence is limited due to:

  - end-users have limited choice regarding ISPs;
    in many regions you are still locked to the incumbent, or have a
    very limited choice of mobile operators



> I agree - in theory.  However, there are an awful lot of companies out there which 
> have an expectation that moving to ipv6 will not cause severe functionality loss.  
> Multi-homing and provider independence are two really serious issues for certain 
> types companies, and PI happens to solve both rather easily.

I see no big pain in assigning PI to current PI holders; they clearly want
to multihome, know how to do it, and it will be very difficult to get them
onto the IPv6 train without it. One important part of this is making 
reasonably sure (there naturally are exceptions) that they ever need that
one assignment, meaning, one entry in the routing tables.

Actually, I expect a lot of churn from the final IPv4 assignment period
due to everybody running for the last breadcrumbs; this might outweigh
the benefits of any IPv6 optimization strategy for a while to come.

(One other important thing in the face of aggregation is some way of kicking
the deaggregators' butts...one glance at any current v4 table and you know
what I mean.)


I do agree with Tony in that growth needs to stay limited to some low
percentage per year, so we don't break routing due to memory problems.
We should not break the Internet in order to achieve that...

Apart from this: I have confidence in the hardware vendors to increase
TCAM sizes sufficiently in the future - generation by generation, of
course, because they want to sell us a new box every other year.

Cheers,
	Elmar.

PS: The second part of paragraph 4 ("An organization that changes
    service provider but does not renumber") seems to be somewhat
    specific to the use of PA in the ARIN region. This can by
    current policy not happen in the RIPE (and AFAIK LACNIC or
    APNIC) region, and ISPs will enforce renumbering easily.

-- 

"Machen Sie sich erst einmal unbeliebt. Dann werden Sie auch ernstgenommen."
							     (Konrad Adenauer)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100928/9c012c4c/attachment.sig>