Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DE13A6920 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dOMLKHcVivVa for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:53:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B38F3A690E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:53:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id oA90sJEO023749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:54:20 -0600 (CST)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA90sJWN010614 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-07.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.111]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id oA90sIo3010606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-07.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.111]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:18 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:54:16 -0800
Subject: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
Thread-Topic: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
Thread-Index: Act/lF/CSCo0xD4xTd6Wb1PlWt5iUQAElLoQ
Message-ID: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C59D3ED91@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <050D54E9-B996-4C70-85DC-5CB9A34D2464@Isode.COM>
In-Reply-To: <050D54E9-B996-4C70-85DC-5CB9A34D2464@Isode.COM>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 00:54:01 -0000

During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
of several major service providers discussed their experiences
with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA) IPv6 prefixes
to the customer instead of Provider-Independent (PI) ones. This
fact did not seem to be at the forefront of the service providers'
use case considerations, and perhaps needs to be brought to a
level of awareness in the community.

Many years ago, there was an extended debate on this list regarding
PA vs. PI. Emotions ran high, and in the end there seemed to be
a consensus favoring PI. Have we forgotten about that? Is it time
to re-open the debate?

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com