[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Tue Apr 5 14:09:03 CEST 2005
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:00:11AM +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > Now, a set of IPv6 policies in which no globally routable > prefixes are longer than /32 allows router manufacturers > to optimize memory usage and design router tables to only > carry those 32 bits of the IPv6 address. We don't have those policies. Supposed-to-be-globally-routable /48s do already exist. > This will conserve memory and allow the routers to scale easier. If we really consider crippling CIDR lookups to less than 128 Bit: I don't think that "64 bit or bit 48" makes much of a difference in terms of router scalability... but I'm guesstimating here with about nothing to back that. Other folks might comment. > Our job is to make a sensible policy that allows the use of > IPv6 to scale smoothly so that it meets the needs of humankind > for the next generation or two. Let's not be so arrogant that > we try to solve all addressing problems forever. That is not > necessary. ACK. And our job is to design something desireable, not something that has serious shortcomings compared to IPv4 (no PI for endusers). Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]