Re: IPv6 Allocation Policy
"Craig A. Huegen" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Pine.WNT.4.44.0305191021160.1716-100000@chuegen-w2k04.amer.cisco.com> |
On Fri, 16 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I can live with that, but if my employer's network had, say, 999 > segments I might be objecting violently :-) Sounds like time to create another VLAN. :) > > at minimum_allocation + 4 bits, or something like that? I realize the > > RIR's don't want to guarantee routability, but they really should take it > > into consideration. > > I think that is something we can't fix at the allocation policy level. > Megacorps will do what they do today, until the IETF offers a viable > multihoming solution. And that is being vigorously debated on the > relevant IETF list. Fair enough. My concern is mostly that I might have to come to the registry and ask for a /32 for each routing point because some service providers have implemented prefix-length filtering at the minimum allocation as in the IPv4 world today. /cah -- Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect C i s c o S y s t e m s IT Transport, Network Technology & Design || || Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive || || San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 526-8104 |||| |||| email: [email protected] CCIE #2100 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6