Michel Py wrote: > > Todd T. Fries wrote: > > What requirement of site-local does provider > > independent addressing not provide? > > We do not have PI addresses for IPv6, to begin with. And the reason we > don't is that as soon as you begin to think about them I can already > hear screams about having to carry an individual /48 in the routing > table for each home.
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ Then go to Distributed Looking Glass, enter 0::/0 as the prefix, select the Bogies mode and hit the "lookup" button. What was it again about /48's? It's already being done. ISP's, especially in the APNIC region even tend to announce both their /32 and /35. Most if not all ISP's don't even aggregate at all. As seen at 01:51 at the Abilene participant's router, when only showing the prefixes for 2001:238::/32 is interresting: 2001:238::/32 2001:4a0:0:ff00::1 1916 293 3425 17419 IGP 2001:238::/32 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 3425 17419 IGP 2001:238:100::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:200::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:882::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f82::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f84::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f85::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f86::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f87::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f88::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f89::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:f8b::/48 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:1000::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:1800::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP 2001:238:1900::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1 100 6939 6939 17715 17419 IGP Data Telekom's, Hurricane Electric's, TILab and Verat's routers even shows /64's being announced _and_ not aggregated... fun fun... At this moment you can announce almost anything you want apparently. Upstream ISP's don't mind at all. Fortunatly there are clued ISP's who do filter accordingly to: http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html I would advise and even try to pursuade people to run them in strict mode... > Yes, we need a PI-like solution but is has nothing to do with > site-local addresses; they are complementary not competing. As you are probably one of the many people who really knows that we need is: Multihoming ;) I got some oddball ideas about it but I'll need to work them out much better and do loads of research about it first. (it would be a host-based solution, not a router one...) Greets, Jeroen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
