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/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Mon Feb 28 17:14:56 CET 2005
jeroen at unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) wrote: > >Like said - it should have been underway already... > > As you so 'badly' want one, write something up and describe exactly what > you want, now you are just running up to the walls. Maybe my english didn't make that clear: I have seen this proposal, and I've just been told it hadn't been submitted yet. > BGP is only 'limited' in the number of updates that can be handled. The > likelyhood that more entries cause more updates will rise, next to that, > we only have max ~60k ASN's anyway at this moment, thus even if every > ASN would announce 1 IPv6 prefix it would stop at max ~60k entries... The Sup720++ CAM tables are limited to 256K v4 entries, unless I've gotten that wrong and the boards also limit BGP paths (which I don't believe. > >... as long as your transit providers know each other, agree not to > >filter, and you're happy with the fallback connectivity through the > >block owner. We're in a lucky position, not everybody is. > > You can also ask the other transit upstream to announce your /48 for > you. Mind you, I prefer to advertise myself, and, as discussed, am in the lucky position that my transit ISPs are reasonable. > Nevertheless, for real end-sites, like my house, most websites and > other 'endsites', if you want to multihome, have some patience shim6 to > be done or as Gert said, make a really neat proposal. See above. I consider this "house" an end site that unfortunately needs real multihoming nonetheless. But I can live with a /48 PA multihoming solution. It works well. I do need a solution for the anycast thing and shim6 will not do it. > Multihoming on IP is silly in most cases anyway, because most of the > time the cable-path is the same, thus one single silly fiber cut would > take you out anyhow... We have taken great care that exactly this is untrue. > and if you can pay for multiple differentiated > uplinks you are most likely also big enough to claim you (will) have 200 > endsites. End sites are no ISPs. Try as I might, I will not have different companies as my customers. There seem to be different kinds of end-sites, maybe we are one type and you're the other. ;-) Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]