we agree that at least initially every prefix allocated should belong
to a different AS (eg, no AS gets more than one); the fly in that is
whether there is an ISP somewhere that is so truly large that it
needs two super-sized blocks. I don't know if such exists, but one
hopes it is very much the exception.
The question is "does every AS get a prefix". Under current rules,
most AS's assigned to edge networks to support multihoming will not
get a prefix. I personally think that's probably the wrong answer
(eg, you and I seem to agree on PI space for networks that would
warrant an AS number does to size, connectivity, and use of BGP to
manage their borders), but it is the current answer.
On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Per Heldal wrote:
The RIRs have been trying pretty hard to make IPv6 allocations be
one prefix per ISP, with truly large edge networks being treated
as functionally equivalent to an ISP (PI addressing without
admitting it is being done). Make the bald assertion that this is
equal to one prefix per AS (they're not the same statement at all,
but the number of currently assigned AS numbers exceeds the number
of prefixes under discussion, so in my mind it makes a reasonable
thumb-in-the-wind- guesstimate), that is a reduction of the
routing table size by an order of magnitude.
I wouldn't even characterise that as being bald. Initial
allocations of more than one prefix per AS should not be allowed.
Further; initial allocations should differentiate between network
of various sizes into separate address-blocks to simplify and
promote strict prefix-filtering policies. Large networks may make
arrangements with their neighbors to honor more specifics, but that
shouldn't mean that the rest of the world should accept those.