[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Nov 2 19:24:02 CET 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 12:51:38AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 08:10:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> > There is no option to give "10 addresses" to a user - period. >> >> What about transfer networks? How do you handle those? >> > >> > The RFC says "all networks get a /64" (unless running unnumbered). >> >> I'm not concerned with the network, but with the IP addresses which >> are given to routers. Or are you expected to run autoconfiguration >> on transfer networks? > > Indeed, this is an interesting issue, and each ISP will find his own > way to handle this. > > Currently, we tend to use the "<prefix>::1" on our side of all links, > and the customer can use whatever he likes - which is usually ::2. > > Autoconfiguration for routers works, but is not overly helpful, as the > other router on the network needs to know the router's IP to route > packets in its direction... - unless you run OSPFv3 (or ISIS), in > which case IPv6 autoconfig (or "just use link-locals") would actually > work fine. > Hi, >From the input I received I got the impression that you have to assign a /64 no matter what. So it means you use 2 IPs (or 10 in my case) and toss the other 2 - 2^64 away and then continue with next customer and assign a new /64 and so on. I hope I see the point of all this address waste in a few years. In the mean time I'll just do it(tm). Cheers, Joergen Hovland
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]