Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy

["Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>]

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I can live with that, but if my employer's network had, say, 999
> segments I might be objecting violently :-)

Sounds like time to create another VLAN.  :)

> > at minimum_allocation + 4 bits, or something like that?  I realize the
> > RIR's don't want to guarantee routability, but they really should take it
> > into consideration.
>
> I think that is something we can't fix at the allocation policy level.
> Megacorps will do what they do today, until the IETF offers a viable
> multihoming solution. And that is being vigorously debated on the
> relevant IETF list.

Fair enough.  My concern is mostly that I might have to come to the
registry and ask for a /32 for each routing point because some service
providers have implemented prefix-length filtering at the minimum
allocation as in the IPv4 world today.

/cah

-- 
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: chuegen@cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..