nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:58:03 +0200
On 12-sep-2005, at 4:55, Matthew Petach wrote:
> And no, multiple IP addresses is not good enough.
What requirements do you have that are fundamentally incompatible with using multiple addresses?
How would a default-free content provider with 1000+ peering sessions be handled? Would they be treated as an ISP, even though they have no downstreams, and get PI space?
There are a few corner cases that fall through the cracks in today's policies. A content network like you describe would be one, a transit ISP with customers that all have their own addresses would be another: where would they get the IPv6 addresses to number their routers?
However, the number of such networks is so incredibly small that whatever happens to them is completely insignificant with regard to scalability. Still, we need a decent policy for these cases, and JUST these cases but not random people who'd also like a /32.
Or would you expect them to get prefixes from every peer they have, and configure several hundred IP addresses on each server?
Getting address space from a peer doesn't make much sense. But 99.999% of all content networks have 1 or more ISPs that they can get address space from and then announce to any peers.
I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the IPv6 arena.
Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I don't know if this makes a difference.
The whole point of IPv6 is that we have a technology that will allow our networks to grow for decades to come. Importing IPv4 mistakes defeats the purpose.
ACLs are already enough of a hassle with one IP address per host.
Ok, let's see... which is more important to keep the internet running, a routing table that fits in our routers, or acl monkeys that get to go home at 5?
Current thread:
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google], (continued)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] John Curran (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Joe Abley (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Christopher L. Morrow (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 11)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Patrick W . Gilmore (Sep 10)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 11)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 11)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 11)
- Message not available
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] John Payne (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Igor Gashinsky (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Tony Li (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Igor Gashinsky (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Crist Clark (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Joe Abley (Sep 13)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 13)
- Message not available
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Igor Gashinsky (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] John Payne (Sep 12)
- Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 13)