On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:24:31 +0000 (GMT) Tim Franklin <t...@pelican.org> wrote:
> > Surely your not saying "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough > > that the other options just don't make sense" so that all residential > > users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't > > break? > > I've seen this last point come up a few times, and I really don't get it. > > If you're multihomed with multiple PA GUAs, yes, you'd want each RA to track > its corresponding WAN availability so your devices are using a prefix that > has connectivity. > > If you're a single-homed leaf network, why on earth wouldn't you want to > generate RAs for your statically-assigned prefix all the time, regardless of > the state of your WAN connection? > This isn't to do with anything low level like RAs. This is about people proposing every IPv6 end-site gets PI i.e. a default free zone with multiple billions of routes instead of using ULAs for internal, stable addressing. It's as though they're not aware that the majority of end-sites on the Internet are residential ones, and that PI can scale to that number of end-sites. I can't see any other way to interpret "we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the other options just don't make sense". Regards, Mark.
