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
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: new IPv6 policy draft - real soon now

  • To: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • From: Brian E Carpenter < >
  • Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:45:38 +0100
  • Cc: Bernard TUY < >
  • Organization: IBM Internet Division

Daniel,

The point is that unless we are collectively foolish, IPv6 will
not have a disaggregation problem - it starts out classless
and provider-based, and dual homing will in the end be solved
by dual prefixes. I really can't see why we would *need* prefix
length based discrimination as we do for IPv4.

   Brian

Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> 
>   > Bernard.Tuy@localhost (Bernard TUY) writes:
>   > ====BT: moreover, one can imagine carriers will be able to aggregate ISPs p
>   > refixes.
>   >     If they've got different legnth ones, I don't know how to achieve this.
> 
> Aggregation is governed by topology and allocation policy.
> Hierarchy helps aggregation. I do not see how equal prefix length
> helps aggregation. Please explain.
> 
> Daniel





  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community