|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
Hi, At 03:45 PM 4/10/2001 -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote: No. Aggregation hides information. Information hiding promotes scalability. Current routing methods can theoretically be as scalable as anyone could ever want if you place well known constraints, namely single homing and pure provider based addressing, on entrants into the routing system. Of course, as neither of those constraints are particularly appealing to anyone but top-tier service providers and the incremental cost of violating those constraints are so small that you quickly get into a "tragedy of the commons" scenario.> Aggregation buys time, that's it. Aggregation does not make the > current routing methods any more scalable. IPv6 is not magic. IPv4 and IPv6 use the same routing paradigm, so if you can have virtually limitless scalability with v6, you can have virtually limitless scalability with v4. Problem is:In IPv4 yes, because you can't have perfect aggregation, too much network multihoming and old prefixes and it's to painful to change address blocks. In IPv6, if implimented right aggregation provides for virtually limitless scalability for unicast traffic. a) multi-homing is demanded by the market and for multi-homing to make sense, you must stop hiding information. I don't see the market demand changing with the deployment of IPv6. b) CIDR requires renumbering. If people want to change providers, they must renumber into their new provider's block, even with IPv6. IPv6 is supposed to make renumbering easier, however I personally don't believe the current addressing model used for IPv6 makes it that much easier than IPv4, so there will still be resistance to renumbering in IPv6. Rgds, -drc
|