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] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Aug 29 12:17:31 CEST 2006
> Well, IPv6 solves the addressing issue but it does nothing for the routing > issue. Multihoming in IPv6 is still an issue being debated due to exact > same reasons you mention. IPv6 allows organizations to REDUCE the number of prefixes that they announce in the global routing table. Most ISPs will only announce one single /32 route in IPv6. This makes a big difference. The debate you refer to is whether or not someone can invent a newer and better way of handling routing in IPv6. Even if they never succeed at this, the same old BGP4 multihoming continues to work with less routes in the IPv6 global routing table than in the IPv4 global routing table. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]