On 2007-07-04 04:23, Paul Vixie wrote:
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.
the aggregation present in that version was unintentional. if you look at
the actual <http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt> you'll see that it
recommends that allocations be deliberately nonaggregatable.
I'm not quite following your logic here. If ARIN allocates ULA-G space
from a distinct netblock, how does that make it any harder for transit
providers to filter routes from fc00::/7, reduce their incentive to do so,
or create an incentive not to?
my concern about aggregation is that if someone receives 8 /48's that are
aligned as a /45 then they could conceivably advertise it as a /45. i hope
that IANA will allocate nonaligned blocks, or perhaps give even numbers to
one RIR and odd numbers to the next, and that the RIRs and LIRs will do
likewise.
On the hypothesis that we do something like ULA-G, I agree with that.
There is a statistical sense in which ULA-G would be more *potentially*
aggregatable than ULA or ULA-C. If ULA-G prefixes are allocated
on an RIR/LIR basis, the chance that two logically adjacent prefixes
happen to be used by customers of the same local ISP will be finite,
whereas it's vanishingly small for ULA or ULA-C.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
