[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Thu Jun 24 17:10:22 CEST 2004
----- Original Message ----- From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)") > Joergen Hovland; > >First of all, if you insist writing your name beyond ASCII, >that's fine if it is common local practice within your >country. However, you should accept the fact that your >international mail is often treated as SPAM. ありがとう。 今固定される (test) > > >>One important factor not explained yet very well is that BGP > >>converges slowly as the number of ASes increases, which is > >>another reason to limit the global routing table size. > > Who said 8192 of the global routing table size fatal? There are N amount of LIR's and other companies in the need of prefixes. Any limit below N is not going to work. Since N is a dynamic variable it can not be permanently set. > > It, of course, is doable, as exemplified by the current reality with > >100K. > > > problem was in the 80's in the long run. The problem with the current IPv6 specification as I see it is purely technical and should > > be dealt with by the vendors making the IP routers. There is more than one way to implement routing algorithms, and several of them > > could equally give the best performance. Of course it would help if the RIR's tried not to hand out more than 1 prefix per LIR. > > Wrong. It does impose unnecessary restriction on mergers of LIRs. I said only to try, not to demand. Unnecessary fragmentation should always be avoided. > > > If a > > LIR is multihomed they should be allocated a prefix. > > If the LIR covers large enough (a lot lot larger than 200), yes > of course. I meant if the LIR was multihomed, period. You can't deny v4 LIR's a v6 prefix if you want v6 to be deployed in this century. Isn't the only reason why v6 policies are so strict compared to v4 today due to the socalled multi-homing problem? Are we afraid of that we won't be able to develop better hardware/software that can support even larger routingtables tomorrow ? > > Then we would have major problems deprecating IPv4. PI allocations doesn't > > exist anymore with IPv6 so that problem is solved..? > > The only technical way to deprecate v4 is to exhaust the v4 address > space. > You are probably correct. But if the same restrictive v6 policies exist when v4 is exhausted people might start to pay good money (like a blackmarket) for v4 multihomed capable prefixes since they can't get multihomed capable v6 prefixes. Then v4 and v6 will together live for ever. Joergen Hovland
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]