[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
marcelo bagnulo braun
marcelo at it.uc3m.es
Fri Jul 2 12:42:41 CEST 2004
Hi Mat, >> >> imho the difficulty here is how do you define a "large" >> network, i mean >> when a network is large enough to obtain its own allocation. > > What Thomas said. Allocations should not be made based on the size of > the network, but rather on the location of the network within the > overall heirarchy. In the absence of a multihoming solution, this is > the only way that scalability can be preserved long-term. > I agree that allocating prefixes w.r.t the location in the hierarchy preserves aggregation, which is vital for the routing system scalability. otoh, i am not sure that imposing that a network with zillions of nodes must renumber when changing isps is a reasonable requirement. that is why, defining what a very large network is may be useful regards, marcelo >>> Maybe the rule should not say "planning to connect 200 organizations" >>> but >>> rather "will connect x devices within the next 2 years". X has to be >>> negotiated. Or, instead of devices, networks. But these are much more >>> useful >>> numbers. As well for some ISPs (which only 5-20 customers, but these >>> are >>> big) as for other organizations, which in the end connect more >>> end-users >>> then most ISPs. >> >> how much is x? > > x is irrelevant. > > -- Mat >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]