ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-ietf-nat-protocol-complications-02.txt

2000-04-25 11:40:04
At 10:22 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
Given the nature of trans-oceanic b/w vs. local b/w arguments I've heard
over the years, I'd say that these delegations are esentially constrained
to topological subregions and that for the most part, having the largest
incumbent ISPs in each region announce the respective /8 would roughly 
meet the IPv6, heirarchical aggregation argument.

A few counter-points:

        - As you know, I am a fan of geographic addressing (to provide a
          real, scalable, user-friendly  solution to most of the multihoming
          and renumbering problems), but as you also know, proposals to do
          any sort of geographic routing have usually been met with
          hostility and derision from the ISP community and others, because
          of the topological constraints and interchange requirements it
          would impose on the ISPs.  I welcome you to try, but don't get
          your hopes up.

        - Are there not a large number of Class B addresses (and Class C
          addresses, but maybe those have all been filtered out by now)
          that were assigned before the registries were established, and
          thus not aggregatable under the registry allocation prefixes?

        - Why are we talking about this?  Yes, you could adopt the same
          or a similar address allocation/aggregation policy in IPv4 as
          has been specified for IPv6, if you were starting all over again
          with IPv4.  But so what?

Steve



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>