* Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> [2004-11-28 14:05]:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Cliff Albert <cliff@oisec.net> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'll see a dramatic increase in ASNs - I mean, it is not like only organizations with an ASN assigned have v4 space now. If they have their portable address space now, why should they suddenly accept that they had to renumber when changing providers?
Because they would have to _qualify_ for an ASN first. And the rules for that are sufficiently strict - you have to prove a distinct routing policy. That means either multihoming two at least two upstreams, or upstream plus peering. The shops who have only legacy PI space announced by their single static routed upstream won't qualify. Plain simple.
there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make things much worse for them, so why should they? on the other hand, 1 ASN -> 1 v6 prefix does not necessarily mean 1 v6 prefix -> 1 ASN. might work out.
The convenience factor _is_ already outlawed.
true for new allocations, but there is a gigantic installed base, and making their situation worse isn't exactly helping in getting v6 deployed. -- Henning Brauer, BS Web Services, http://bsws.de hb@bsws.de - henning@openbsd.org Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity. (Dennis Ritchie)