who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Sun Nov 21 02:44:23 UTC 2004

Paul Vixie wrote:

>
>i think all oldtimers are skewed.  growth in number of enterprises will be of
>the small kind where renumbering isn't so painful.  exceptions where there
>is enough size to make renumbering painful won't overflow the routing table
>the way the ipv4 "swamp" threatened to do back in the days of 64MB RP cards.
>
>  
>
Here is a possible multi level solution for end sites and non /32 
qualifiers:

- Sites that dual-home use alternate path encoding with PA /48's
- Sites that tirpple home do the same but get PA /40's to make up for 
the loss of site subnet
bits in tripple mode.
- Sites that multihome 4 ways or more get a PI  /40
- Large sites with more than X devices get a PI /40 if at least 
(dual|tripple)homed
to avoid massive renumbering/provider lock-in.

This would set the bar high enough to limit routing table growth while 
allocating
PI space to those who need it the most.

--
Kevin Loch