Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit
maho at nic.dtag.de
Fri Apr 3 12:55:58 CEST 2009
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Martin List-Petersen wrote:
> S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> > I don't see that following, at least not with a sane PI assignment policy.
> > PI space being available does not mean that there would be no more PA at all.
> Which means spacing, so that if an increase is needed, the prefix is
> increased, but not a second one allocated.
> > What I -do- see following is that an entity can be/have an autonomous system
> > without being an ISP (and without needing a /32), many of them being
> > autonomous systems already in v4, and not willing to give up their routing
> > independence to add v6.
> I agree entirely here.
> > Also, most ASs would only announce one prefix instead of the zoo most
> > keep today.
> And on this one two. We'll have one prefix per AS (more or less). That
> will be less prefixes than are announced today for the current
> autonomous systems.
> The only problem is, that we're also allocating 4-byte ASN's now which
> gives potential for a bigger routing table than the one we have.
> On the other side, that's just progression for you and would have
> happened anyhow, IPv6 or not.
> Martin List-Petersen
> Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobail an Iarthair
> Phone: 091-865 968
Dr. Martin Horneffer -- maho at nic.dtag.de
Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Com Zentrale, T142-7
48152 Münster, Hammer Str. 216-226
More information about the ipv6-ops