Please see an earlier write-up below. Will we run into IPv6 routing table
problems without more formalized aggregation guidelines?
"The general guiding principal for the allocation of IPv6 address space is
as follows:
" /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers
" /64
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:01 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
> >My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management
> >of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per
> >country.
>
> If the customer doesn't
At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
In the decentralized world of the Internet, we have a bigger problem in
that we do not have a clear entity that impose the necessary regulatory
pressures and there is no commercial pressure. All we can do is to ask
people to be good Internet citizens a
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you
would get to a point where pe
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:14:27PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
> My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
> management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one
> prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for
> national providers and fol
Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and
you would get to a point where people would make some more rational
decis
You make it sound like the politics involved in a regulatory/governed
setting are different than those involved in a commercial setting. In the
end, it's all about economics.
I think the UN has enough trouble managing the things it attempts to manage
right now. Don't let them try to be technica
Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
> management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of
> one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides
> for national providers and folks that care about opt
I'm sorry, North Korea is in the UN. My mistake.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Johnson
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:25 PM
To: Tony Li; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especial
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one
prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for
national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's
the only way that
Daniel Senie wrote:
There are basically two issues: the forwarding table and BGP
processing. Information in the forwarding table needs to be found
*really* fast. Fortunately, it's possible to create datastructures
where this is possible, to all intends and purposes, regardless of the
size of t
At 06:33 PM 11/29/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-nov-04, at 5:20, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the "oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes tod
On 28-nov-04, at 5:20, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will
be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the "oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes today" is similarily
unfounded as far as I'm aware. I
13 matches
Mail list logo
