About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

  • From: Michael.Dillon@localhost
  • Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:17:31 +0100

> Well, IPv6 solves the addressing issue but it does nothing for the 
routing 
> issue. Multihoming in IPv6 is still an issue being debated due to exact 
> same reasons you mention.

IPv6 allows organizations to REDUCE the number of prefixes
that they announce in the global routing table. Most ISPs will
only announce one single /32 route in IPv6. This makes a big
difference.

The debate you refer to is whether or not someone can invent
a newer and better way of handling routing in IPv6. Even
if they never succeed at this, the same old BGP4 multihoming
continues to work with less routes in the IPv6 global routing
table than in the IPv4 global routing table.

--Michael Dillon




 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community