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

[Tim Franklin <tim () pelican org>]

> This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about
> people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone
> with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal,
> stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority
> of end-sites on the Internet are residential ones, and that PI can
> scale to that number of end-sites. I can't see any other way to
> interpret "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the
> other options just don't make sense".

OK, sorry, I think we're addressing different points of the same comment.

I was looking very much at the second half of "all residential users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their 
network doesn't break", ie the reason *why* they'd want PI.  I assumed that was "disappears" as in "has an outage", 
rather than goes bust, user changes ISP etc - and if you've only got one ISP, you don't need PI or ULA to have *local* 
connectivity work through an ISP outage.

I agree, on the current routing platforms we have, PI for every end site is insanity.  Whether we should be looking for 
routing platforms (or a different architecture - LISP?) that allows PI for every end user is a different question...

Regards,
Tim.