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 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Thu Mar 3 12:36:23 CET 2011
> So IPv4 isn't that bad, even technically, if you think about it. But > it turns out that the current IPv6 allocation practice prevents > running with aggregated FIBs---there's a hole after each PA > allocation. The hole is visible because you're expected to generated > ICMP unreachables for packets target there, so you can't lump two PA > prefixes together, even if they share the same next hop. This is yet > another case of premature optimization gone wrong. This would mean that one ISP de-aggregating their /32 won't cause many problems. Those could be auto-aggregated in the FIB. - Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI for profit, webhosting and route deaggregation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]