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

[David Conrad]

Sascha,

On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Sascha Luck wrote:
> Better yet, abandon the PA/PI distinction entirely as it doesn't
> really have any value in IPv6 land.

"96 more bits.  No magic."

Given IPv6 uses the exact same routing technology as IPv4, if the PA/PI distinction was necessary with IPv4, it is necessary with IPv6.   

> Let everyone who needs routable space get routable space and, by all means, become a RIR member. 

No one is suggesting someone who needs routable space should be denied.  What the draft is arguing is that in order for the routing system to scale, non-topologically significant sites should obtain (routable) address space from their provider.

To be very clear, if we do not follow this approach (and there is no change in routing technology), we will repeat history: ISPs, in order to protect their infrastructure, _will_ start filtering out long prefixes and dampen route flaps.  If you have a long PI prefix, you'll be free to contact the ISPs that are filtering your route (assuming you can find someone to announce it) and negotiate a fee for them to accept your prefix.

It wasn't a lot of fun in the mid-90s.  I doubt it'll be fun the second time around.

Regards,
-drc