Thus spake "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2007-06-27 16:31, Kevin Kargel wrote:
...
The problem I see with having small ULA-C allocations is that as people
move around geographically those allocations will lose aggrebility.
I don't understand your comment. No ULA prefix aggregates ever - they
will always be specific routes,
... assuming everyone follows the rules in RFC 4193. However, what if a /48
isn't enough for some network and they decide to use a /45? Is that better
or worse than eight properly-derived /48s?
and ULA-C is no different in that respect.
With the current draft, that is correct. With Paul's proposed changes of 27
Jun, they definitely aggregate at the LIR and RIR levels, making it much
harder to defend the position that they won't end up in the DFZ.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
