RE: [narten-r/[email protected]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
"James Jun" <james-qgwYH1rQKO9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]> Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:38:43 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Organization | TowardEX Technologies, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:21 PM > To: james-qgwYH1rQKO9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [narten-r/[email protected]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN] > > On 14-apr-2006, at 18:09, James Jun wrote: > > > How about you start operating a real network and feel the pain of your > > enterprise customers who require usability? > > How about you do a "show ip bgp" and experience some pain of your own? > > > IPv6 is a failure > > IPv6 was created so we could continue to have an internet when we're > out of IPv4 addresses. We're not out of IPv4 addresses yet. How can > IPv6 be a failure at this point? > > > because of > > ongoing FUD regarding so called 'routing table explosion' that even > > IPv4 is > > still susceptible to, > > We've managed to make a fairly big mess of IPv4 in 25 years. Yes, it > still works but it's not pretty. IPv6 is supposed to last a lot > longer than 25 years, so explosions of any kind are to be discouraged. Yes, discouraging customers from multihoming and delivering reliability--that appears to be the common message from a good portion of IPv6-advocacy groups. IPv6 is still IP, and not anything different than IPv4 other than a color: more address space. If it is all of a sudden going to require shim6 or similar, and discourage multihoming like the way it happens today in IPv4, it certainly does not help. Yes I look at `sh ip bgp` everyday (or show route protocols bgp for that matter). The deaggregation is there, but nowhere is it at a level that I'm going to lose sleep over it. One would think if you want IPv6 to better develop, let people *use* the technology as they did freely in IPv4, and work on a more scalable forwarding lookup & routing technology instead of restricting people's ability to become multihomed. To say that we service providers are simply more worried about our paycheck than the internet... well, I beg to differ. James