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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Tore,

On 28/05/2014 21:21, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Doug Barton
> 
>> We have a substantial number of medium-sized enterprises which share the 
>> following characteristics:
>>
>> 1. They are large enough to have some internal resources that need 
>> addressing (printers, file servers, maybe a web site or two)
>>
>> 2. They are small enough that PI space and their own ASN are not practical
> 
> You don't need an ASN to use PI space.
> 
>> 3. Some of them want to have multiple service providers, either for 
>> failover or traffic shaping
>>
>> 4. They don't want to have to renumber all of their internal resources 
>> when they change providers
>>
>> What's your solution for them?
> 
> We have a few customers in the same situation. So we obtained a PI
> prefix for them, 

The important words there are "a few". As long as the numbers are
reasonable, this scales. When the numbers cease to be reasonable,
it doesn't scale. The estimate I made some years ago, based on
a little research into statistics in a few countries, was that
there must be about 10 million small or medium enterprises in the
world. We don't know how to route 10M prefixes in BGP-4. So
somewhere between "PI for a few customers" and "PI for every
enterprise", we have to stop.

See the RRG archives.

    Brian


which costs next to nothing in the RIPE region at
> least, and advertise the prefix on their behalf (and in the cases where
> there's a second upstream, the second upstream does the same). Works
> perfectly well, and is much less complex than anything solution
> involving ULA, NAT, multiple prefixes on the hosts, or whatever. The
> customer just gets a bunch of addresses he can use in perpetuity.
> 
> Tore,
> who prefers to KISS
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> .
>