Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > - We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will > see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises > and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with > this.
Little disgression about the meaning of "PI": in many people minds, it means "PI as we know it today for IPv4", which is exactly what we don't want for IPv6. It would be better to use another acronym such as GRUPI or GAPI. > - We think that the use of NAT is one of the serious > architectural problems facing the Internet today, > and that NAT is blocking the advancement of the > Internet in many ways. For an IPv6 Internet to > be a "success", we must avoid the wide-scale > deployment of IPv6 NAT. > - We don't currently have a fully developed plan for > aggregable, scalable IPv6 PI addressing. Some > folks are working on this problem, but no one > has claimed to have a full answer yet. > - We know that providing widely-used PI addresses in IPv6 > will result in substantially larger routing > tables than doing straight PA addressing. > - We also know that routing table size is a real scaling > factor in the IPv4 Internet, for which we have not > determined an adequate solution. > - Routing table growth is not (yet) a scaling problem > for IPv6, because of limited deployment. However, > wide deployment of IPv6 is also a criteria for > "success", so we need to build a scalable > solution... > - However, "success" must also include the avoidance of > wide-scale IPv6 NAT deployment, which we can only > achieve if we provide PI addresses... > [Ad infinitim.] Good summary, IMHO. > So, where do we go from here? Two-prong approach, see http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/roadmap.txt Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
