On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said: >>> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>>> Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or >>>> it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be >>>> used with PA. >> >>> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there. >> >> It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*. >> >> Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in >> the IPv6 routing table? Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start >> using PI prefixes? (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an >> ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?) >> > Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up with a > scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not > sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.
because: 1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's b) every end site gets PA only iii) no need for pi d) all of the above