North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Kevin Loch
  • Date: Sat Nov 20 21:42:56 2004

Paul Vixie wrote:


i think all oldtimers are skewed. growth in number of enterprises will be of
the small kind where renumbering isn't so painful. exceptions where there
is enough size to make renumbering painful won't overflow the routing table
the way the ipv4 "swamp" threatened to do back in the days of 64MB RP cards.


Here is a possible multi level solution for end sites and non /32 qualifiers:

- Sites that dual-home use alternate path encoding with PA /48's
- Sites that tirpple home do the same but get PA /40's to make up for the loss of site subnet
bits in tripple mode.
- Sites that multihome 4 ways or more get a PI /40
- Large sites with more than X devices get a PI /40 if at least (dual|tripple)homed
to avoid massive renumbering/provider lock-in.

This would set the bar high enough to limit routing table growth while allocating
PI space to those who need it the most.

--
Kevin Loch