[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [email@example.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
On 14-apr-2006, at 13:49, Per Heldal wrote:
Geo-aggregation doesn't work in a competitive market. It would
new routing-technology to do so, and thus fall in the same
Well obviously you don't know what you're talking about (not
apologizing for my crankiness, btw) or we wouldn't be having this
discussion in the first place.
The alternative to new technology is to break the business-model for
transit. Endless treads on this issue over 10 or more years have
concluded that with existing technology transit providers either
provide equal connectivity to everyone in a region (customer as
non-customer), or eliminate the gain from geotop by announcing
more-specific routes. This problem currently has no technical solution
... hence something else is needed.
The discussions that you elude to were never very informed because
nobody else ever bothered to work out the details in a draft. I think
it can be done and here you can read how:
IPv6 without PI, shim6 or some other alternative won't fly.
Well, shim6 is moving along at a reasonable speed these days. And as
I said before, it's not like people are adopting IPv6 en masse at
this time. Now some people say it's lack of an IPv6 multihoming
solution that holds IPv6 deployment back but I don't believe that for
one second as multihoming in IPv4 isn't all that common to begin with
and the idea that you need two of something when you don't even use
one is a bit strange.
However, an alternative is to stop V6 deployment until the supporting
technology is ready ... if you can hold back the floodgates of hype
I'm doing my bit with regard to the latter, and I don't think any
holding back is required, there is still SO much to do: IPv6 software
SOHO routers, ISP networks, content networks, applications...
Turning to reality; I haven't seen anything indicating that practical
limitations have come closer in recent years. In fact, the average
router today has more headroom than its ancestors back in '98 or '99.
The difference being that in those days, it was still feasible to do
full routing in a fairly small network. These days, a router that is
both fast enough to forward at the required speed (at least close to
a gigabit per second) and has enough memory and FIB table space to do
full routing is too expensive for a small network so they use Quagga
or just don't bother.