This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue Jun 22 21:29:37 CEST 2004
Gert Doering; Hi, > Something that right now confuses *me* is: If I understand this > correctly, the 'default-free zone' is meant to be kept below 1000 > routes, so routers can be fast. The hard limit is, IMO, 8192. > But what about the internal > structure of all these networks? At least the "internal core" boxes > need to know all routes for the "NLI"s (or the NLIs' customers), which > might well be many 1000s... You are right. There is nothing mentioned in the draft, but I suggested 1000 today, which I still think enough for TLI internal, but should not be enough for NLI. Do you have any suggestion? Note that routers in NLIs may have less performance than those in TLIs. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]