Subject: Re: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:45:25 +0100

>> remember of the voting in Atlanta we had consensus for a limited
>> version of site-locals...not creating a separate address structure?
>
> as I recall, we had consensus for limiting site-locals,
> as well as widespread support for the idea that PI globals were needed.
>
> it's not an either-or.
>

Uh? Why would we want both? I think we have way to many address groups 
already....

I clearly see a need for PI space or something that would fill that 
role. I don't see why we can't assign it in the way we are doing today. 
It will create a routing scaling issue but let's deal with that for 
what it is.

- kurtis -

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 07:51:31 -0500

>I clearly see a need for PI space or something that would fill that role. 
>I don't see why we can't assign it in the way we are doing today. It will 
>create a routing scaling issue but let's deal with that for what it is.

I would like to see us assign PI addresses just like all other global addresses
and route them globally.

However, I don't think that we can responsibly do that and claim that the
route scaling issue is SEP.  Is there any reason to believe that we _can_
actually find a scalable way to route to "portable" PI addresses?

It seems like we may need some consultation/cooperation between the multi6
group and the IPv6 group, to see if we can come up with a full solution to
provide scalable, routable PI addresses.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:29:44 -0500

> actually find a scalable way to route to "portable" PI addresses?

I don't think we need to solve the global routing problem for PI addresses
to be beneficial.  PI addresses are extremely useful even if they can 
only be routed by private agreement between networks.  Trying to make
PI addresses be suitable for global routing as a pre-condition for having
PI addresses strikes me as self-defeating.   It's nice if it works out
that way, but it should not be considered a necessary condition.

My fear is that trying to solve that problem will delay PIs enough that
we'll be stuck with site locals.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 08:29:44 -0500

Keith

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:48:27 +0100

> actually find a scalable way to route to "portable" PI addresses?

When we hit 1k non-6bone routes find me at the following IETF meeting 
and I will buy you dinner. We can then talk about what to do.

> provide scalable, routable PI addresses.

This I agree. What seriously worries me is that we are trying to use 
large amount of super-glue to get around what is really a routing 
issue, and also a issue to which we have very little data to back up 
the claims.

Do for example know for certain that there are that many sites that 
wishes to multihome? Do we know if they are fortune 100s or home DSL 
subscribers? Who of these are willing to renumber when changing service 
provider? I say that we still are in the infancy of IPv6 and trying to 
second guess what the network will look like when it is of the same 
size as the IPv4 network. If I am to be completely honest - I would 
like to see somewhat more than ~250 assingments worldwide before I 
start making any conclusions, even on IPv6 happening at all.

That said, *something* will have to replace IPv4. I am just worried we 
have not seen this starting to happen yet. there is simply nothing that 
is that appealing about IPv6 yet.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:45:25 +0100

- kurtis -