On 20/10/2014 22:58, Christopher Morrow wrote: > NOTE: why don't v6 allocations in that file have 'ALLOCATED PA' in > their entries?
because there are only two types of v6 blocks: ALLOCATED PA and ASSIGNED PA. The assignments aren't in that document and for v4, there are several types of status: ASSIGNED PA, ASSIGNED PI, ALLOCATED PA, ALLOCATED PI, EARLY REGISTRATION OR LIR-PARTITIONED. >> The baseline for starting to deaggregate will be much lower for ipv6 and >> there will be much less pressure in future to deaggregate. > > why is that? I thought geoff's numbers/reasons for deaggregation were > linked more to TE (perceived or supposed) than anything else? (maybe a > bunch of 'redistributed connected' as well) the baseline is lower because we're starting off with a situation where most LIRs have been allocated all the ipv6 address space they will ever need. The deaggregation pressure will be lower because the only deaggregation pressure will be from TE and there will be no need to slide-n-dice IPv6 address blocks in future asset sales, and no last /20 per RIR. IPv4 space has deaggregation pressure from last /8 assignments, from TE requirements and will have future pressure from asset sales. Once divided, the allocations will be impossible to reaggregate. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
