[134954] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefix lengths
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mohacsi Janos)
Thu Jan 13 05:13:43 2011
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:13:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F57B570-4E67-4118-9DB4-03242AD9CACC@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into
>> IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough
>> practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which
>> will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and
>> policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to
>> become multi-homed.
>>
>> This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient
>> solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.
>>
> It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and that
> one has not yet been developed. I'll be surprised if there isn't more
> progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future.
Dear Owen,
If you have some idea in your mind propose something for IETF. BoF
sessions are open for completely new proposal:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/bof-procedures.html
or you can directly propose something for the particular wg:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
