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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.