[36543] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Tue Apr 10 15:52:50 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010410093939.A16762@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010410154405.27307N-100000@da1server>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:27:54AM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> > The reason they don't allocate /24's is because without aggregation the
> > Internet is not scalable. Perhaps they are being too agressive, but the
> > reasoning is sound.
>
> Aggregation buys time, that's it. Aggregation does not make the
> current routing methods any more scalable.
In IPv4 yes, because you can't have perfect aggregation, too much network
multihoming and old prefixes and it's to painful to change address blocks.
In IPv6, if implimented right aggregation provides for virtually limitless
scalability for unicast traffic.
