Consensus on MHAP/v6 Multi-homing

[Jeroen Massar]

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:07 +0100, Cameron Gray wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > 
> > (PS: address-policy-wg at ripe.net anyone? :)
> > 
> 
> Well my original question was routing policy more than anything...
> 
> I don't see why seperate /48s can't have seperate origins in much the 
> same way that IPv4 works and IPv6 works for /32s.
> 
> Other than the large(r) routing table.
> 
> Is this the only reason?

Routing table is not a big problem here though.
We will run out of ASN's before that.

If every ASN would announce a prefix, there would be 60k prefixes in the
IPv6 table, which is not a lot. Would maybe be easier to just give every
ASN a prefix then too btw, saves on RIR work ;)

The problem here is that we will have to move to a 32bit ASN space.
Upgrade BGP etc (though there are tricks for this).

In any case, IMHO if an organization needs globally unique IPv6 address
space, they should be able to get one, but the RIR's should allocate
them from a single block (eg a /20).

ASN landrush will be there before there will be IPv6 address depletion.
But this is more a 'problem' of BGP using "only" a 16bit number.

Either way it goes there will at a certain point in time with the
current way of allocations be a long table which contains all the
prefixes that are available around this globe.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20050420/5fcc573c/attachment-0001.bin