|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IP renumbering timeframe
In a message written on Fri, May 31, 2002 at 02:35:18PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> The only reason for an ASN is the need to globally announce routing
> policy due to multihoming. Unless policy changes, this community tends
> to insist that the prefix length announced via that ASN corresponds to a
> site, not a single subnet. For IPv6 that means a /48 makes sense as an
> initial allocation with a new ASN, and a /64 does not.
In IPv4 land people generally filter on what the registries assign,
or on some looser policy. In my /24 per ASN proposal for IPv4, I
expected that /8 to be filtered on a /24 boundry.
Similarly in IPv6, I would expect the /32 to be filtered on a /64
boundry.
In a message written on Fri, May 31, 2002 at 06:09:03PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> This is _not_ the service model of RFC2374, which envisions 8192 top
> level routing aggregators (TLA's), with other entities getting their
> address blocks from one of the TLA blocks.
This is an excellent point. I'll be the first to step forward to say
that while this is all good in theory, the likelyhood that the market
will accept the structure imposed by the IPv6 designers is near zero.
That's not saying we might be able to do things more intelligent with a
new system, but the grand goal is a pipe dream.
--
Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org
|