Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site?

[Carlos Friacas <]

Hi all,


On Mon, 9 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi Gert,
>
> Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks.
> I think this improves the efficiency.
>
> Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way
> LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier
> way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home
> networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs).
>
> Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today
> HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the
> contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big
> scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction,
the RFC3177 restriction (today) says my LIR "shouldn't" assign a /60 or a 
/56 to a small-but-not-a-single-subnet customer... from my view, there is 
a strong restriction here...


> again, to
> the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-(
nooooooo, please :-)


> On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that
> might last for "only" 60-100 years?
yes.
if we envision its replacement there would be no point in trying to deploy 
it realistically...


> I don't really think so, as it will be
> probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional
> reasons (may be will not be IP at all).
would like to know which reasons...


Regards,

./Carlos
--------------                    http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html

         Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"