Keeping in reserve, was: Re: [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Sep 28 17:51:42 CEST 2006
On 28-sep-2006, at 14:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > One possibility will be to allocate /48 but keep reserved the > remaining /32. > If the applicant justify that the /48 is getting filtered, then he > may opt > to justify to obtain the /32. Is this a possible compromise solution ? History, both in IPv4 and IPv6, has shown that keeping space in reserve to accommodate future request doesn't work very well: people often end up announcing several blocks anyway. So let's not waste the space and make filtering harder by doing this. Also, since a /48 is an incredible amount of space to begin with, coming back for more should be rare in IPv6. The advantage of only giving out /48s with no unused space between them is that if, for instance, 12000 /48s are given out, that will be from a single /34 and allowing /48s from a /34 allows 16384 routes, while allowing /48s from a /20 (because for every /48 of 12000 a /32 is kept in reserve) allows 268 million routes, more than enough to overload any reasonable routing system in an attack.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations (2006-01)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]