Re: Minimum IPv6 size

From: Brandon Butterworth (no email)
Date: Sun Oct 04 2009 - 11:16:59 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Beckman: "Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted clients"

    > > If there are to be filters then they should be defined once and never
    > > changed as people will fail to update
    >
    > Yay! We can return to classful routing again. That sure worked out well
    > for us the first time around. ^_^;

    We have already, all we're discussing now is if we do a better job
    of implementing it.

    Classful suffered from lack of space in each range and too coarse a
    set of fixed ranges, all fixable in v6 so perhaps it's not so bad?

    > So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
    > regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
    > and give back the /32?

    And what if you need a few /48's, then you're open to others
    advertising some of yours too.

    With no organised mechanism of communicating acceptable prefix lengths
    to all routers [1] then we either do nothing and let anarchy rule, do
    something that overly constrains or do half the job and have both
    problems.

    > Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
    > range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
    > range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
    > a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
    >
    > *removes tongue from cheek*

    What would be most efficient for all? Semi classful or not I don't mind
    but it does seem pointless to have been going round the same circle for
    so many years.

    brandon

    [1] sbgp would be secure anarchy


  • Next message: Peter Beckman: "Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility for botted clients"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD