At 11:16 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
> And why do you think that the ISP community and others will not
> meet the IPv6 routing proposal with anything less than the
> "hostility and derision" that came from the previous attempts
> to impose "topological constraints and interchange requirements"
> on them?
I was talking about the requirements of geographic addressing and routing.
The IPv6 addressing and routing plan does not impose those requirements.
Rather, the IPv6 addressing and routing plan is just the CIDR plan that
is being used today by that community for IPv4, with some policy proposals
to attempt to limit the number of prefixes that must be globally advertised,
something that many in that community have said over and over again is of
vital importance.
(Of course, some will respond with hostility and derision to any plan,
even if it's exactly what they would argue for, if it comes in IPv6
clothing.)
>
>% - Are there not a large number of Class B addresses (and Class C
>% addresses, but maybe those have all been filtered out by now)
>% that were assigned before the registries were established, and
>% thus not aggregatable under the registry allocation prefixes?
>
> Yup, a bunch.
OK, so because of that, just changing the IPv4 Internet today to advertise
only /8s globally would not be functionally equivalent to just advertising
IPv6 TLAs, which was your original question.
>% - Why are we talking about this? Yes, you could adopt the same
>% or a similar address allocation/aggregation policy in IPv4 as
>% has been specified for IPv6, if you were starting all over again
>% with IPv4. But so what?
>
> Well, for two reasons: a) IPv4 address delegation policy, since
> about 1996 has been done at a gross level, on continental bounds
> (e.g. the RIR model) so there is a rough alignment with the proposed
> IPv6 plan, at least as far as "modern" delegations are concerned.
> This is something that could be exploited for testing to see if the
> IPv6 delegation/aggregation plan is actually going to fly.
Huh? We have been "testing" that for some years in the IPv4 world, and
we have adopted it for IPv6. What further testing do you have in mind,
and in what salient way do you think the IPv6 delegation/aggregation plan
is different?
> b) We have IPv4 addresses as legacy environments that -RIGHT NOW-
> are showing problems with computing/maintaining state in a dynamic
> world. If we can "prove" the solution in the IPv4 world, then that
> would remove much of the "hostility & derision" when moving on to
> IPv6.
Huh? You want to stop routing to IPv4 prefixes that don't aggregate under
/8s in order to "prove" that we shouldn't allocate such prefixes in IPv6???
Steve
