Subject: Re: [rrg] Summary of architectural solution space

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:07:31 -0500 (EST)

> From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>

    >>> I thought the standard model for IPv6 was to assign sites a PI /48?

    >> No, that's the standard heresy. The standard model has always been
    >> multiple PA's.

    > It seems that the IAB then needs to have a chat with the RIR's then.

I think that horse escaped rather a long time ago, alas. If the RIR's were
willing to think they were able to make routing engineering decisions, I
doubt very much they'd be willing to reverse course because the IAB told them
to.

The irony here is that the adoption of PI was seen as 'necessary' to drive
the adoption of IPv6. As some of us pointed out at the time, it would in fact
likely have the _opposite_ impact, by making the routing overhead of IPv6
even higher for the ISPs.

I think the old Benjamin Franklin quote about experience applies here as to
so many other aspects of IPv6.

	Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:48:10 +1300

On 2008-11-25 07:07, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I think that horse escaped rather a long time ago, alas.

Indeed. Actually it escaped via RFC 1881 (December 1995), and it was
intentional. I personally believe that the registries have made it
too easy to get PI prefixes, but that was a choice of the operational
community. However, it doesn't change what I was trying to say,
which is that the *design* assumption for IPv6 was PA, so it seems
appropriate to call that Plan A.

   Brian

> If the RIR's were

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:02:46 -0800

|Indeed. Actually it escaped via RFC 1881 (December 1995), and it was
|intentional. I personally believe that the registries have made it
|too easy to get PI prefixes, but that was a choice of the operational
|community. However, it doesn't change what I was trying to say,
|which is that the *design* assumption for IPv6 was PA, so it seems
|appropriate to call that Plan A.

Interesting.  So you're saying that it's perfectly ok for the operational
folks to set aside the stated routing architecture and do something else?

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:27:50 +1300

> folks to set aside the stated routing architecture and do something else?

Not exactly, but I think we do have to try to make future technology
intersect with reality.

   Brian

---

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:05:36 -0800

|> Interesting.  So you're saying that it's perfectly ok for 
|the operational
|> folks to set aside the stated routing architecture and do 
|something else?
|
|Not exactly, but I think we do have to try to make future technology
|intersect with reality.

Or make reality intersect with future technology...

Tony