Hi all, On Mon, 9 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Gert,
Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. I think this improves the efficiency.
Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs).
Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction,
the RFC3177 restriction (today) says my LIR "shouldn't" assign a /60 or a /56 to a small-but-not-a-single-subnet customer... from my view, there is a strong restriction here...
again, to the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-(
nooooooo, please :-)
On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that might last for "only" 60-100 years?
yes. if we envision its replacement there would be no point in trying to deploy it realistically...
I don't really think so, as it will be probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional reasons (may be will not be IP at all).
would like to know which reasons... Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"