> 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".
OK, sorry, I think we're addressing different points of the same comment. I was looking very much at the second half of "all residential users get PI so that if their ISP disappears their network doesn't break", ie the reason *why* they'd want PI. I assumed that was "disappears" as in "has an outage", rather than goes bust, user changes ISP etc - and if you've only got one ISP, you don't need PI or ULA to have *local* connectivity work through an ISP outage. I agree, on the current routing platforms we have, PI for every end site is insanity. Whether we should be looking for routing platforms (or a different architecture - LISP?) that allows PI for every end user is a different question... Regards, Tim.
