[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]



Joe,

That being the case, then in the long term do we need an alturnative to
multi-homing that does not use de-aggrgegation and that has full support
for TE? 

___Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller@uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Joe Abley wrote:

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 22:06:13 -0400
> From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
> To: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller@mci.com>
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>,
>      iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
> 
> 
> On 13-Apr-2006, at 21:49, Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net) wrote:
> 
> > Are you saying that de-aggrgegation (individual PI or more specifics
> > of one of the upstream's PA) will continue to be the only multi-homing
> > solution for those who need advanced TE capabilities?
> 
> No, but that's certainly one view of the future.
> 
> > Are you suggesting that the size of the IPv4 and IPv6 routing  
> > system that
> > results from "traditional IPv4 style" multi-homing will not be a  
> > problem
> > that needs to be solved by some other multi-homing solution that  
> > does not
> > use de-aggregation?
> 
> Absolutely not. I fully expect people to become more enthusiastic  
> about alternatives when things start blowing up.
> 
> > Are you suggesting that hardware is or will be sufficently large to  
> > be at
> > least seven years ahead of the route table growth, and still remain
> > affordable?
> 
> Absolutely not (especially the last one).
> 
> 
> Joe
>