[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting

Hi

The same problem (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4984) has been discussed in the Routing Research Group for a couple years.

Their discussion has been summarized in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6115

AFAIR there is a section talking about aggregating prefixes. 

Luigi


On Sep 19, 2011, at 14:19 , Dan Luedtke wrote:

> 2011/9/19 Jasper Jans <Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl>:
>>> It sounds suspiciously like ITU for me (ie, bad).  It imposes previously
>>> non-existent architectural limits and constraints on Internet routing
> That's exactly what I thought.
> 
>> Why, for example, didn't you suggest nation state borders?
> If, and only if, anyone really would suggest practically borders, then
> please no nation state borders.
> Peering-Regions could be an idea, e.g. AMSIX-region, DECIX-region and
> at all places where LIRs use to peer.
> 
> How do LIRs handle the issue at the moment? I guess I would just add a
> default route to my routing table for one (or more) transit providers.
> Or buy a better(tm) router if I could afford it. Sorry for being
> barefaced, but although I appreciate the idea, I just don't think it
> is doable yet.
> 
> One cannot aggegrate routes when it is not reflected on the
> corresponding infrastructure, can one?
> 
> regards,
>  danrl
> 
> -- 
> danrl / Dan Luedtke
> http://www.danrl.de
>