North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Mon Oct 17 08:20:23 2005

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 11:39 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> > Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some 
> > way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever 
> > hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily 
> > aggregatable. Lots of objections though (the "providers and geography 
> > don't align" one though is ultimately slightly bogus, because with 
> > non-provider-aligned allocation policies in place it would be in 
> > providers interests to align their peering to match the allocation 
> > policy).
> I think we need a researcher to sit down and 
> figure out exactly what this would look like
> in a sample city and a sample national provider.

There has been quite some research on it, there where ideas, there was
even talk of a vendor going to implement it, but it never happened. It
won't work because of cash reasons (read: telco/transit don't want it)

For your 'city data' check:

or for pre-processed files: under "Geographical data".


will be quite of your liking.
Allocation: IANA   block = 2346::/16
Ratio in use: one /48 site for 4 persons
Allocation: 6bone   block = 3FFE:FB00::/24
Ratio in use: one /48 site for 1024 persons

Which indeed seems quite reasonable. The problem with this is:
 'who is paying for which traffic and to whom'

One solution is an overlay network....

Notez bien, though this solves multihoming, it doesn't solve relocation,
thus if your company moves it has to renumber, and renumbering is no fun,
then again, you can most likely start from mostly scratch in the new location
and you might be able to tunnel (parts of) the old allocation to the new site
depending on which subnets/hosts one has moved already.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part