Minimum IPv6 size
brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk
Sun Oct 4 15:16:59 UTC 2009
> > If there are to be filters then they should be defined once and never
> > changed as people will fail to update
> Yay! We can return to classful routing again. That sure worked out well
> for us the first time around. ^_^;
We have already, all we're discussing now is if we do a better job
of implementing it.
Classful suffered from lack of space in each range and too coarse a
set of fixed ranges, all fixable in v6 so perhaps it's not so bad?
> So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
> regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
> and give back the /32?
And what if you need a few /48's, then you're open to others
advertising some of yours too.
With no organised mechanism of communicating acceptable prefix lengths
to all routers  then we either do nothing and let anarchy rule, do
something that overly constrains or do half the job and have both
> Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
> range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
> range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
> a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
> *removes tongue from cheek*
What would be most efficient for all? Semi classful or not I don't mind
but it does seem pointless to have been going round the same circle for
so many years.
 sbgp would be secure anarchy
More information about the NANOG