5 ms·
Not GP, but I think IPv6 is generally fine. The big issue is around mid sized enterprises, where multi homing becomes a need and for so long PI address space wa
by snuxoll 5y ago
Not GP, but I think IPv6 is generally fine. The big issue is around mid sized enterprises, where multi homing becomes a need and for so long PI address space was reserved for peering-sizes entities. This makes sense from the perspective of reducing routing table size, but to date there’s no good way to do multihoming with multiple PA blocks (there are ways, but they all suck).
The IETF really needs to fix this issue in particular, it’s the last big hurdle in seeing adoption IMO.
- throw0101a 5y ago> but to date there’s no good way to do multihoming with multiple PA blocks (there are ways, but they all suck). Is using ULA and NPTv6 any worse than using NAT44?
- snuxoll 5y agoIt’s not - but that doesn’t mean it’s a good solution. Clients should be able to know their globally routable address and ULA with NPTv6 seriously fucks with that, so I’m not a fan.
- ikiris 5y agoPI was never reserved for peering sized entities... just get PI space.
- throw0101a 5y agoDepending on the tech skills of the organizations, your ISP(s) may have to run BGP on your behalf--even if the IPv6 is yours. (Not sure if that's even a thing.)
- magila 5y agoWhat would a good solution to that even look like? Giving every mid-sized company it's own PI block would massively bloat the routing table so that's not going to happen. The solution space that's left basically comes down to some form of NAT/NPT or multi-home support at the endpoints. The IETF's preferred solution is the latter which seems reasonable to me.
- snuxoll 5y agoI fully agree that giving PI blocks out like candy is not the ideal solution - but the solutions for dealing with multiple PA spaces are woefully inadequate right now. I’d really like to see the IETF step in here and come up with some workable proposals before we ruin IPv6 while it’s still possible to fix these issues.