Re: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses)

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
> > > > On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > > > Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or
> > > > > it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be
> > > > > used with PA.
> > >
> > > > It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there.
> > >
> > > It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*.
> > >
> > > Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in
> > > the IPv6 routing table?  Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start
> > > using PI prefixes?  (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an
> > > ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?)
> > Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up with a
> > scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not
> > sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.
>
> because:
> 1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's
> b) every end site gets PA only
> iii) no need for pi
> d) all of the above

I understand how they rationalized the cop-out. Now, getting back to the
real world...

Owen