Hi, On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:19:09PM -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Gert Doering wrote: I just want to point out that this discussion is *not* about tunnels only. It's about generic addressing plans for point to-point links, and the failure of /64s to address the needs of *ops* types.
This discussion does not belong here. The RIRs responsibilities are what's on the right of /64, not what's on the left.
Hummm? You're a bit confused about left and right? However: what would be the right forum to do this discussion? v6ops seems to be about other things, and the other IPv6 related WGs at IETF seem to be shutdown or dead. I didn't start the discussion here, but I think that it's not overly off-topic. People reading this list are trying to *deploy* IPv6, and as such, problems show up.
Unfortunately, ISP networks usually consist of *many* point-to point links, and all of them want to be addressed in a structured and time-saving (!) way. Which means "use some of the available bits to do structure" - and if you use up a /64 per link, you need those bits further up, and those are just not there in the current policy frame work.
Oh really? Mmmm, how many of the 4 billion /64s you have been allocated do you need? By my account, a network with 60k subnets including 1/3rd of ptp and loopbacks fits in a /44, including loss to internal aggregation.
You don't read what we are writing. We want to include AS numbers in the addressing scheme for point to point links (= 16 bits lost), and sequence numbers (another 16 bits, for ease of addressing). So if you do /64s on ptp links, plus 2 times 16 bits for enumeration, you need a /32 to handle all your point to point links. Add a router number (16 bits), you'd even need a /16 for this. Yes, of course this fictuous /16 would be very sparsely populated. But this is what IPv6 is all about, isn't it? Give people a big enough address space so that they can do things the *easy* way, instead of the conservative way. Allocate sparsely, and make use of the address space. Of course wasting a /16 for ptp addressing is ridiculous. This is why creative people have thought up schemes to put those bits for "router id, remote as, link number" into the fields that are to the *right* of the /64. And voila, all your ptp links in *one* /64, which can then be nicely filtered on border routers, and will be sufficient for however big your network is going to be.
(If the RIR->LIR allocation/assignment framework is changed to hand a /16 to every LIR, such a scheme might not be a problem. In the current scheme, it is).
If you can demonstrate that you need more than a /32, you might get it. Show us the numbers.
See above. My numbering plan requires AS number, router ID and link number in the network part for each point-to-point link. If you force me to use a /64 for those, I need a /16 for my infrastructure (and a couple of additional /16s for my customers' networks, of course). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56029 (55671) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299