Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Organization | IBM |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tony Li wrote:
>>> Ideally, in an Internet architecture that we don't have today, there
>>> would be N prefixes, one per ISP. However, the host
>>> portion of the locator would be a constant regardless of prefix. The
>>> IGP need not know about the external prefixes, so there's
>>> no issue there.
>>
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> But this implies modifying IGPs, right?
>>
>
>
> Not seriously. You would be modifying them to carry around a constant
> local portion of the address and ignore the "global"
> prefix. Simply picking a single constant prefix for use internally
> would suffice.
Hence draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt
I'd also like to observe that running with multiple simultaneous
prefixes (with its consequences for DNS and routing) has always
been part of IPv6; it's not a result of hypothetical multi6 solutions.
I also tend to agree that very large enterprises (such as I and Eric
happen to work for) may be best served by simply getting a /32, but
there are many medium size enterprises for which this is not true,
and that is exactly why we are running this WG.
Brian
Brian