Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

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?