[address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Tue May 3 11:17:47 CEST 2011
On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 3 May 2011, at 09:48, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > > If an ISP receive max 2 IPv6 blocks, this is just two entries in the >> (current BGP) routing table. >> >> The use of long prefixes in the costumer's network means more costumers >> served from the same block. >> >> Is there a point where we disagree? >> > > Not with the above. However the initial context of this discussion was > about issing PI space to end customers. [For some definition of PI space and > end customer.] So if one of those customers was to get one of these long > prefixes, they might want to keep it if they switch providers => an extra > route for a mickey-mouse amount of space. We know from v4 that this is a Bad > Thing. > Fully agree. The IPv6 PI space concept is Bad Thing, because creates routing table fragmantation. Short prefix or long prefix - it does not matter. Routing table fragmentation do matter. G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110503/617aa572/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]