----- Original Message ----- From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Joergen Hovland;
First of all, if you insist writing your name beyond ASCII, that's fine if it is common local practice within your country. However, you should accept the fact that your international mail is often treated as SPAM.
ありがとう。 今固定される (test)
One important factor not explained yet very well is that BGP converges slowly as the number of ASes increases, which is another reason to limit the global routing table size.
Who said 8192 of the global routing table size fatal?
There are N amount of LIR's and other companies in the need of prefixes. Any limit below N is not going to work. Since N is a dynamic variable it can not be permanently set.
It, of course, is doable, as exemplified by the current reality with
100K.
problem was in the 80's in the long run. The problem with the current IPv6 specification as I see it is purely technical and
be dealt with by the vendors making the IP routers. There is more than one way to implement routing algorithms, and several of
should them
could equally give the best performance. Of course it would help if the RIR's tried not to hand out more than 1 prefix per LIR.
Wrong. It does impose unnecessary restriction on mergers of LIRs.
I said only to try, not to demand. Unnecessary fragmentation should always be avoided.
If a LIR is multihomed they should be allocated a prefix.
If the LIR covers large enough (a lot lot larger than 200), yes of course.
I meant if the LIR was multihomed, period. You can't deny v4 LIR's a v6 prefix if you want v6 to be deployed in this century. Isn't the only reason why v6 policies are so strict compared to v4 today due to the socalled multi-homing problem? Are we afraid of that we won't be able to develop better hardware/software that can support even larger routingtables tomorrow ?
Then we would have major problems deprecating IPv4. PI allocations doesn't exist anymore with IPv6 so that problem is solved..?
The only technical way to deprecate v4 is to exhaust the v4 address space.
You are probably correct. But if the same restrictive v6 policies exist when v4 is exhausted people might start to pay good money (like a blackmarket) for v4 multihomed capable prefixes since they can't get multihomed capable v6 prefixes. Then v4 and v6 will together live for ever. Joergen Hovland