[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Jun 13 16:34:55 CEST 2006
> >You can design your network with the > > future in mind and then grow into your topology. > > That is not possible in today's IPv4 world where > > everybody is concerned with not wasting addresses. > > I think it's worth clarifying that RIPE's IPv4 policy specifically > states that one-to-one renumbering for valid assignments are fine. I understand that. But in the IPv6 world, if I have a plan to build an organization in 20 countries with 3 regional manufacturing plants, and 35 sales offices, I can build the network topology around that plan, even though I only have 8 employees on the second floor of a former typewriter repair shop. I can size my subnets according to my 10-year plan and my ISP will give me the /48 that I need to make it that way. However, in IPv4 my ISP will not accept the 10-year plan and will not give me 6,000 IPv4 addresses for my factory subnet that currently contains only one server. There is a clear philosophical difference between IPv6 addressing and IPv4 addressing. --Michael Dillon --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]