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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Dec 7 22:09:05 CET 2005
On 7-dec-2005, at 15:58, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote: >> To a first approximation, there is *no* level of aggregation in >> the UK >> that works below UK-wide. > If that were really true, and I suspect that it is only true > for the very largest providers, then there is an easy solution. > Providers who see no benefit in using geotop addressing should > continue to use classical IPv6 addressing. Rather than debate wheter someone in Aberdeen is really going to multihome to ISPs in Norwich and Belfast, let me observe that aggregating at the European national level is just fine. The largest countries in Europe each have about 1% of the world's population. So if they also have 1% of the routing table we can have 100 times as many routes as we could without geographical aggregation. That should give us plenty of breathing room. It's harder for the US because there are no easy demarcations there. -- I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]