Re: IPv6 policy at LACNIC( was: RE: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 05:03:30PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > This does _not_ mean that longer prefixes cannot or should not be
> > injected into the routing system. The point is that it should not be
> > _required_ that the routing system accept such longer prefixes in
> > order to get ubiquitous reachability.
> 
> That's a bit hard to reconcile with the firm intention since the beginning
> to contain the size of the DFZ for IPv6 by avoiding longer prefixes like
> the plague. 

Indeed there are two different goals colliding here.

 - reduce the IPv6 DFZ by all means, and whatever it might cost

 - get people to adopt IPv6 at all.

The second goal means "as long as there is no other workable IPv6 
multihoming solution, longer-prefix-assignment will be used" (or 
certain classes of early adopters won't adopt IPv6 at all).

The IPv6 DFZ will be smaller than the IPv4 DFZ anyway if people stick
to "no aggregateable more-specifics announced from the same origin AS"
(because it means "usuall every AS out there will announce only one
prefix").

[..]
> > The requirement for a single announcement should be there, but it
> > should not also imply that longer (more-specific) advertisements are
> > not allowed.
> 
> But they need to be strongly discouraged. If that is no longer agreed, please
> let me know so that we can stop looking for a multihoming solution that
> doesn't generate one prefix per site.

There needs to be a solution *now*, for the time it will take the IETF
to come up with the magic bullet.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  57882  (57753)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: [email protected]
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6