Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

[Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>]

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 01:22:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> let me see if i understand.  you propose a technical cluster
> <bleep> with which we are already horrifyingly familiar to fix
> an administrative problem?  have i got it right?

No, you didn't. I didn't propose anything, and especially not NAT.
I just reflect realities out there.

Personally, I just wait for people to realize that they won't be
able to force people into provider lock-in, allow one PI prefix per
AS and THEN things can go off. With that, the global IPv6 table
would be around 18k routes btw. As IPv4 and ASN are virtually
unrestricted available today, I don't suspect any bigger growth
rates in IPv6 land for ASNs and prefixes than in the IPv4 land.
As such, I fail to see the problem with PI for IPv6 for a long long
time to come.

But that's just me silly. :-)

And yes, I read multi6 WG.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0