[36548] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Apr 10 16:44:15 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:28:06 -0400
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
To: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
Cc: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010410162806.H7423@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010410154405.27307N-100000@da1server>; from gmaxwell@martin.fl.us on Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 03:45:10PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 03:45:10PM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:
>
> 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.
So long as "implemented right" means "edge sites are no longer
permitted to multi-home at the IP layer". If those are the
constraints of your routing policy, IPv4 will scale too. Very
nicely.
Joe
