[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
6bone Routing [was RIPng & tunnels]
- Subject: 6bone Routing [was RIPng & tunnels]
- From: [email protected] (Geert Jan de Groot)
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 19:29:33 +0200
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Aug 1996 22:28:11 EDT." <[email protected]>
On Mon, 05 Aug 96 22:28:11 -0400 [email protected] wrote:
> >There is no such thing as real IPv6 addresses. It shouldn't be needed
> >either; if people can't renumber at the flick of a switch, then I don't
> >think we have met all the requirements for IPv6.
> Even with IPv6 its still going to be painful. If customers are going to
> move to IPv6 they will want to avoid instantaneous renumbering. We need
> to be realistic here.
> So your not going to set up the registries as Bob pointed out?
If you need non-RFC1897 IPv6 addresses, I think you should talk to IANA
as IANA has not mandated the registries to do that yet. As I explained,
some things are simply not set up for it yet, and the best way to
make this going is to talk to Jon.
On the other hand, I don't see much advantage to using different
addresses. 1897 addresses are globally unique, don't have a fixed
lifetime (they will disappear someday, but not in the forseeable
future - they aren't net39 addresses with a fixed 'no good after' date).
What _is_ lacking is aggregation possibilities.
However, should 'real' address space be assigned at this time,
then these addresses would not be aggregatable either, so
unfortunately it looks like your customers will need to renumber
anyway. Can you provide technical motivation why renumbering from
'real' addresses would be better than renumbering from 1897 addresses?
Again, please talk to Jon about your needs. It hasn't been discussed much
between IANA and the regional registries yet, so if you want to
start it, go ahead. Please understand that I don't want to hamper you
but I'm just asking the same questions Jon would probably do.
(I'd like to take this offline, is that OK?)