- Previous message: Jeroen Massar: "Cool IPv6 Stuff"
- In reply to: (no email): "RE: IPv6 Advertisements"
- Next in thread: Chris L. Morrow: "Re: IPv6 Advertisements"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Stephen Sprunk (no email)
Date: Fri Jun 01 2007 - 10:31:30 EDT
Thus spake <>
> If an ISP wants to aggregate their IPv6 traffic, they will announce
> one block for their entire global network. Then, internally, they
> will assign /48s in LA from a western USA internal allocation
> and /48s in Hamburg from a northwestern Europe internal
> allocation.
Bad example, since (a) blocks from different RIRs aren't going to aggregate
and (b) RIPE doesn't assign /48s anyway.
If we were talking about a company with sites on the east and left coasts of
the US, then IMHO they should get a single /48 if they have internal
connectivity (single site) and two /48s if not (two sites).
However, I wouldn't argue (much) with ARIN issuing a /47 even in the former
case on the logic that such constitutes two "sites", particularly if they
had separate management; it's when we get to the level of hundreds or
thousands of locations (with internal connectivity) that I have a problem
with calling each location a "site". Below that, it doesn't do much harm.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
|
|
|