Hi Brian,
the only adverse effect of adopting choice 3 with N=32 is that
in a large site with larger than /32 address block, the optimal
route is not always chosen.
For such a case, site admin should have a mechanism to configure
policy table of hosts in his site, rather than configure N.
Because changing N means changing destination address selection
behavior for all the destinations in the Internet.
Kindest regards,
Arifumi Matsumoto
On 2009/06/22, at 18:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
Sorry about the late reply. I agree with this (that is,
choice 3 in section 2.6 of draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-01).
Regards
Brian
On 2008-06-07 03:01, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
Let me switch to 6man ML.
# Brian, thank you for redirection ;)
Regarding this issue of RFC 3484 section 6 rule 9,
let me give you my two cents, which is conditional longest
matching rule application.
When the length of matching bits of the destination
address and the source address is longer than N,
the rule 9 is applied. Otherwise, the order of the
destination addresses do not change. (For DNS-RR)
The N should be configurable and I guess it should be 32
by default. This is simply because the two sites whose
matching bit length is longer than 32 are probably
adjacent.
Regards,
Arifumi Matsumoto
On 2008/06/04, at 13:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Joe,
It seems to me that direct assignment could quite possibly become
the
default for small IPv6 sites in the ARIN region. IPv6 uptake to
date has
been so tiny that I don't think anybody can predict what behaviours
will
become prevalent if/when IPv6 takes off.
We can't predict how economic actors will choose to act. What we can
predict
is catastrophe if ten or 100 million sites attempt to push /48
advertisements
out into BGP4. It would be highly irresponsible of any registry to
pursue
a policy that leads to such a result, until we have a technical
solution
to the resulting scaling problem. It's exactly because we don't have
such
a solution that the IPv6 design model is PA.
I'm not shocked at the notion of a few hundred thousand early
adopters of
IPv6 getting PI prefixes. But that's a very different matter than
millions.
(This remains directly relevant to the subject of this thread. The
infamous Rule 9 exists, right or wrong, because of PA addressing
in IPv6.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
i...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Arifumi Matsumoto
Secure Communication Project
NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
E-mail: arif...@nttv6.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
