Hi Leo, Almost any business (even small) would like to have Internet resiliency in the form of redundant connections through the different Carriers. Then hosts should have PA addresses from different carriers.
Hosts are not capable to choose properly which one address to choose for the particular flow. If the address of Carrier 1 would be used as the source for the packet going to Carrier2 then Carrier2 would drop the packet as a result of spoofing protection (uRPF check). If the connection to the carrier is lost then the respective PA address should be withdrawn (by the way, not resolved problem in IETF). There are only 2 currently available solutions for Internet connections resiliency: 1. Request PI from RIR. Then the Internet table would be the size of all businesses in the world. 2. Use ULA internally and NPT (prefix translation to proper PA) on the CPEs connecting to the Carrier. We are pushing to fix ND to open the opportunity for other solutions: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-vv-6man-nd-prefix-robustness-01 But looks like nobody cares. Even for the non-redundant site, ULA is needed to preserve the local communication when the site is disconnected. Eduard -----Original Message----- From: Leo Vegoda [mailto:l...@vegoda.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:04 PM To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> Cc: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottel...@ungleich.ch>; Marco Hogewoning <mar...@ripe.net>; ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was: Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83) Hi Eduard, On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:18 AM Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> wrote: > > There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and fees. > It is the size of the Internet table. > If just businesses would get PA addresses (GUA) then all routers on > the Internet would need a 30M routing table (30x from now, routers now have > 1-4M now) If subscribers would join this club then the Internet table should > grow to 2B. It is impossible even for 2100 year. > Good chances that the world would revert back to IPv4 NAT under such > circumstances because IPv6 would just crash. > > Stability ("no renumbering") should be achieved by ULA. No choice. Can you explain why so many small and medium sized businesses would want unique stable addresses? I can see the need in large, managed networks but my experience of networks in small and medium sized organisations is that there is no systematic management of any kind at all. They just plug stuff in and expect it to work. Regards, Leo -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-wg
