On 27-nov-04, at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI
space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about anyone
"should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation possible.
PI in IPv6 without aggregation would be a bigger mistake than all other
IPv6 mistakes so far.
And v6 without PI for will not get widespread adoption.
Further, ULA will become de facto PI without aggregation. Hence my believe
that ULA is a bad idea, and, my recommendation that we face the reality that PI is an important thing (unless we want to replicate the v4 NAT mess). As such, I'd much rather see us develop sane PI policy than continue down the present road.
So what would be a sane PI policy? Apparently you don't want ULAs becoming de facto PI without aggregation, so do you agree that we need aggregation for PI?
