At 11:00 AM -0700 4/25/00, David R. Conrad wrote:
> > At 8:48 AM -0700 4/25/00, Bill Manning wrote:
> > >and this is different from only carrying the 253 usable /8 prefixes in
> > >IPv4 how?
> >
> > The set of customers who have addresses under a given IPv4 /8 prefix greater
> > than 127 do not all aggregate into a single topological subregion (e.g., a
> > single ISP), and therefore more granular routes must be widely disseminated
> > to make those customers reachable. That's the difference.
>
>No. This is a historical feature that IPv6 alleviates by being able to start
>over with a clean slate. You could (at least theoretically) emulate this in
>v4.
Of course. I interpreted Bill's question as how would this be different
than limiting IPv4 prefix advertisements to only /8s *today*, i.e., without
renumbering the IPv4 Internet, so I answered accordingly. I didn't think
to interpret the question the way you did, because the answer is so obvious
it wouldn't have made sense to ask.
>The difference is that v6 gives you the option of significantly more TLAs than
>v4 can ever have. Of course, this isn't really a feature.
Right. IPv4 could in theory have 2^32 TLAs and IPv6 could in theory have
2^128 TLAs. Are you saying that 2^32 TLAs would be OK?
Sheesh -- we get flamed for trying to impose a limit on the number of TLAs
and we get flamed for the possibility that the number TLAs might not be
limited...
Steve
