Re: draft-azinger-cidrv6-00

[Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>]

On 20/07/2010 23:13, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Also, in section 10 it is recommended that "Internet Registries
> should severely limit or eliminate [...] PI assignments".

RIRs carry out the policies set by their constituents, and cannot 
arbitrarily limit assignments unless there is scope within their 
policies to do so

In addition, until such time as there is a viable alternative for 
end-user multi-homing in ipv6, I'm not sure if making a recommendation 
like section 10 is actually going to achieve anything - other than 
raising eyebrows.

Section 5.2: Projections.

Um, I don't believe that a projection for 2040 adds anything here.  As 
the authors note, an S curve seems more likely at this stage, so adding 
an arbitrary number which is a similar order of magnitude to the 
population of the earth doesn't really lend credibility to the table :-)

Section 5.1: Analysis.

>    Thus, the bulk of the routing table growth appears to be due to PI
>    prefix injection.

No doubt it is.  Provider level aggregation will ensure that the N 
provider associated prefixes that most providers have been allocated 
today will be be reduced to 1.  Would it be useful to adopt a potential 
modeling premise that posits that most PI ipv4 holders today will take 
out an ipv6 block in the future, and see where that leads?

Section 5:  it may be useful to flesh out traffic engineering issues 
here.  This has the potential to increase prefix numbers from 1 back to 
N, and my gut feeling is that this is going be the #2 prefix source 
after PI.

Nick