John Stracke wrote:
>
> "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
>
> > BTW, I fully agree with those who contend that v6 does not solve the
> > route agregation problems we have in v4.
>
> In itself, no; but getting people who have old non-aggregatable addresses to
> transition to v6 will give them the chance to get aggregatable addresses, won't
> it?
Perhaps. It then trades something else off. There are legitimate reasons
to NOT have aggregatable addresses. Some companies actually like
multihoming, as a way to keep their services operational in the face of
one network provider melting. Aggregation isn't the goal of customers,
reliability is. Having multiple connections to one ISP is not considered
sufficient, either.
We have adopted a world view where only ISPs are worthy of being
multi-homed, and everyone else must aggregate through a single ISP.
There's something Perry may be alluding to (or not). Many companies
create PRIVATE internetworking links among themselves for handling
sensitive data. These require unique addressing. IPv6 has, to date, not
been an option for this use. Two reasons: 1. The registries were not,
until recently, handing out IPv6 addresses, and 2. The registries are
using the same kinds of rules as for IPv4 in that addresses are handed
out to ISPs who then hand them to companies. The problem with this is
that if you never intended to route the addresses on the public net
anyway, you won't be seen as worthy by the ISPs, or the registries.
I have been thinking for a while that it'd be useful for IANA to set
aside a class A block for a new registry. This one would provide very
small blocks of addresses, for private inter-corporate use only, to
anyone willing to pay. This would provide a guarantee to users that the
addresses they get ARE unique, and will work. It's kind of like RFC 1918
addresses, but with a block set aside for private interconnects. Clearly
it's too late to do this with the blocks presently in RFC 1918, though.
Take this same idea, and replace that class A with a big prefix in IPv6
space and perhaps the folks doing private interconnects will help fund
the development of IPv6 equipment and updated applications.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranthnetworks.com
