Subject: RE: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:38:01 -0800

Kurtis,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> a billion /48 prefixes in the global routing table, what do
>> you call this? I call it IPv6 swamp.

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> It is! No question, but do you want to wait 5+ years?

You are missing the point. If we had a reasonable expectation that a
scalable flat routing protocol would be available in 5 years, I would
buy the argument. But what do we have today? Zero, not even a believable
promise.

This is why I used the term "gambling" before. What you are lobbying for
is to say that it is OK to give away PI and create the IPv6 swamp
because in 5 years we will be able to clean it because by then someone
would have invented The Perfect Routing Protocol (C)(TM).

We are not developing IPv6 to barely match what v4 does with a bigger
address space. We need to make it better. In order to re-create the
swamp you have to show a carrot the size of Texas and so far we've not
even seen a peanut.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:17:55 +0100

> buy the argument. But what do we have today? Zero, not even a 

But you think that we will have a billion multihomed networks in five 
years so we need to go for someting really complicated that we have no 
experience with?

> is to say that it is OK to give away PI and create the IPv6 swamp

yes.

> would have invented The Perfect Routing Protocol (C)(TM).

Well, at least we would know what problem we are trying to engineer a 
solution for.

> - kurtis -

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:38:53 +0100

> > is to say that it is OK to give away PI and create the IPv6 swamp

I disagree. If our goal (as it should be) is a 10 billion node
network (at least) then the risks in allowing even the beginning
of a swamp are too great.

   Brian

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:34:40 +0100

> of a swamp are too great.

I don't mind us looking at a 10 billion node solution. But I am fairly 
skeptical that any of the proposals we have today will scale to that 
though. so starting out with anything should be a good idea.. Otherwise 
noone will start to use IPv6 and we can discuss theory for ages.

- kurtis -