Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:34:52 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>

    > a large user's PI space

The few (relatively speaking) large users are not the issue - and raising
them is just a distraction. It's the _many_ more medium and small users who
are a concern.

One of two things is true: the routing can support PI space for all of them,
or it cannot. My sense is that there is not broad agreement on which way this
one falls, but I think more people than not think it cannot. (And if you
think ISP's are slow to support IPv6, wait until they find out it means
supporting routing tables which are as large, if not larger, than IPv4...)

However, assuming the routing cannot support 'PI space for all', then if we
don't have multiple namespaces (thereby allowing all easy/cheap access to
feaures such as provider independence and multi-homing), the question turns
into 'how to separate out the few large sites whose PI space can be
supported, from the many small sites whose PI space cannot be supported'.

Doing this via policy seems impossible - the politics are infeasible.
Charging for routing slots (and inter-provider settlements for same) seems
like a possible solution, provided the ISP's can agree to introduce it. A
Boeing won't care if it costs $10K a month (to pick a random number out of
the air) to support a PI, but the charm of PI addresses will likely decline
sharply for Joe's Consulting when _they_ find out it's going to cost them
that much to use it.

	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg