[75689] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Loch)
Sat Nov 20 21:42:21 2004
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:44:23 -0500
From: Kevin Loch <kloch@hotnic.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3is80jlld.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>i think all oldtimers are skewed. growth in number of enterprises will be of
>the small kind where renumbering isn't so painful. exceptions where there
>is enough size to make renumbering painful won't overflow the routing table
>the way the ipv4 "swamp" threatened to do back in the days of 64MB RP cards.
>
>
>
Here is a possible multi level solution for end sites and non /32
qualifiers:
- Sites that dual-home use alternate path encoding with PA /48's
- Sites that tirpple home do the same but get PA /40's to make up for
the loss of site subnet
bits in tripple mode.
- Sites that multihome 4 ways or more get a PI /40
- Large sites with more than X devices get a PI /40 if at least
(dual|tripple)homed
to avoid massive renumbering/provider lock-in.
This would set the bar high enough to limit routing table growth while
allocating
PI space to those who need it the most.
--
Kevin Loch
