Re: IPv6 Allocation Policy

Hi,

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 09:00:58PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> /35s are not supposed to exist anyway. As far as I know, all /35s have
> been extended to /32s without the need to renumber; just extend the
> prefix. 

Some clarification: a few LIRs have actually NOT extended their prefix
(for reasons unknown), so there are still "official" /35s around.

[..]
> By looking what is at stake, I do prone address space conservation but
> the long-term problem we are having is the size of the Global Routing
> Table. WRT this issue, announcing eight /35s or eight /32s does not
> change anything.

I fully agree here.  Routing table size is the critical factor, address
space usage is (at least until we have filled something like "2000::/8"
or so) not an issue.

[..]
> them, my position is clear: I will continue to oppose any policy that
> proposes to announce longer prefixes and look the other way when Cisco
> asks for a /29 when a /44 would have been enough.
> 
> Would have been enough if a multihoming solution was deployed, that is.

What *is* the current state of affairs concerning multihoming solutions?

I have had quite some argument with a colleague yesterday about "whatever
they are argueing about, the end customers will not care until it makes
multihoming easy for 'large enterprise' type customers".  While I don't
like that - he's right, people that can have multihoming today are
quite reluctant to give that up for some vague promises why IPv6 is better 
for them.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  54495  (54267)

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