On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 12:15 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 18-nov-04, at 18:02, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg seperate > > offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting > > an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32. > > Jeroen, this is nonsense and you know it.
It is not nonsense as long as 'multi6' doesn't have a solution to the problem, but as politics go above getting solutions... <SNIP> > Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable > globally routable address space just doesn't scale and there are no > routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in the IP > version bits, so learn to love renumbering. And again, IPv6+NAT makes > no sense as NAT works much better with IPv4 and with NAT you don't > really need the larger address space. Absolutely. Which is why one will always here from me: "Want to NAT? Then stay at IPv4" > > Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be > > able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this > > could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, > > not > > having to send it to another place of the world themselves. > > If you want to introduce geography into routing, do it right. The above > "solution" is the worst of several worlds. Not my idea at all, several big ISP's already do this. Check http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/all/ and look which organizations have multiple RIR allocations ;) Just for the reason you mentioned above: they are actually separate organizations under one big umbrella. But they did fill the policy thus got their allocation. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part