Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

> 
> Tore
> 
> The fear with IPv6 is that just because one constraint on PI has been
> removed, those handing out addresses will not realise that there is
> another show-stopping constraint in the number of entries a FIB can cope
> with, 1M being the best estimate (as before, on the RRG list) with the
> foreseeable improvements to current technology.

Yes, we need to change the fundamental way we deal with routing and come up
with a more scalable solution than the current everyone knows every prefix
model.

However, at any likely growth rate, if we actually start working on the problem
instead of simply inflicting limitations and calling it handled, then we have
time to address the issue in IPv6. Hopefully the RRG will wake up and start
addressing this issue. For now, it is out of scope for v6ops as I understand
the WG charter.

> And I think that every SME who has lost business with the unreliability
> of their ISP will want multi-homing and will think that with IPv6 and PI
> the constraints have gone, and the number of such SMEs can only approach
> 10M over time.

All the more reason this issue needs to get addressed instead of ignored.

> So, Brian is spot on, and just as the IETF did little about IPv4
> addresses running out until the event loomed large, so I expect history
> to repeat itself with the growth of PI in IPv6.

He’s somewhat right about the problem. He’s absolutely wrong in believing that
the current limitations are a solution.

Owen