[125740] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Thu Apr 22 08:04:29 2010
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:03:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20100421043432.GB25523@vacation.karoshi.com.>
(bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com's message of "Wed, 21 Apr 2010 04:34:32
+0000")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> a few questions.
>
> IPv6 on your radar?
> Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs?
>
> Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line?
ULA looks always interesting, but tends to end up in obscurity because
the right folks don't buy in.
Anyway, the proposal brings IPv6 down to about 40 globally routable
bits, compared to 21 to 24 in IPv4. That's still a lot, though.
A further simplification would replace the Global ID with the AS
number.
A real improvement over IPv4 would embed distinct IDs for location and
identity of any subnet, but that would probably mean that subnets
receive less than 64 bits.
