[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
roger at jorgensen.no
Mon Sep 19 12:02:17 CEST 2011
On man, september 19, 2011 11:38, Jasper Jans wrote: <snip> > I have been wondering - since BGP is all about reachability as a goal and > not > so much optimal routing/best path/etc. is the easy solution for growth in > the > DFZ not overly simple? The way I see it you will end up with three sets of > routes > that you will need to carry on your routers: > > 1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and > /64 > 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger > 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger ... geo adressing? :-) anyway, about #3, how should be it implemented in practice? Who should carry others route in DFZ between regions, and who should distribute it to others? Should RIPE/ARIN/APNIC etc "pay" someone to make region<>region communication possible? and yeah, the idea is sound and I agree but can't really see an easy way to implement it today... -- --- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger at jorgensen.no | - The Future is IPv6 ------------------------------------------------------- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]