Search RPD Archives
[policy-wg] AfriNIC policy: IPv6 for critical infrastructure
apb at cequrux.com
Sun Oct 15 14:11:42 UTC 2006
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> The only "disadvantage" of a /32 is that some people could consider
> it as a waste. But let's be realistic, even if the predictions can
> always fail, which current policies the life of IPv6 will be around
> 480 years. Do you really believe we are "wasting" addressing space ?
Yes, I believe that /32 is a waste. I don't believe the predictions
about 480 years; I expect the rate of use to change before the end of
the 480 years.
> Let me give you a very simple example of the routability
> problem. APNIC has a /32 for their own use. However, they announce two
> separate /33 blocks, because they have two data centers. Some days I
> can't reach their web site, because some ISPs don't like the /33.
I submit that the reachability problems are not because "/33 is too long
to get through filters"; but rather because "this particular /33 is more
specific than what was allocated". If what is allocated is a /48, then
filters will be designed to take that into account.
I envisage filters that allow /32s but block /33s in parts of the
address space where operators know that the smallest allocation is a
/32s; and that allow /48s but block /49s in parts of the address space
where operators know that the smallest allocation is a /48.
> Do you still think a /32 is bad and a /48 will make it ?
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the RPD