[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Carlos Friacas cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue May 10 13:56:16 CEST 2005
Hi all, On Mon, 9 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi Gert, > > Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. > I think this improves the efficiency. > > Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way > LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier > way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home > networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). > > Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today > HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the > contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big > scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, the RFC3177 restriction (today) says my LIR "shouldn't" assign a /60 or a /56 to a small-but-not-a-single-subnet customer... from my view, there is a strong restriction here... > again, to > the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( nooooooo, please :-) > On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that > might last for "only" 60-100 years? yes. if we envision its replacement there would be no point in trying to deploy it realistically... > I don't really think so, as it will be > probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional > reasons (may be will not be IP at all). would like to know which reasons... Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]