[sig-policy]RE: [sig-ipv6]Let's restart discussion about RIPE-261
At 08:05 AM 28/05/2003 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
However, the choice of the block to be used is critical. In the
discussion about the issues Gert Doering raised (I will send another
email to the list) I did rate the CAP system proposed in RIPE-261 as my
last choice because the CAP prefix (2000::/3) was too big and did not
leave any room to special or unforeseen purposes.
At this stage the global unicast space is 1/8 of the total IPv6 space,
and some 5/8 (actually more) is unassigned (RFC 3513). One possible
response to this perspective is that the currently unassigned pool is large
enough to leave room for special or unforseen purposes while still allowing
2000:/3 to be used to maximal effect in a sparse allocation framework.
However, there are a raft of further considerations that any address
allocation framework should take into account, and at some stage there
is probably some benefit in revisiting the underlying framework of
attempting to impose strict provider-based aggregation hierarchies.
There may well be benefit in undertaking some form of match of
capabilities between current routing hardware and software capabilities,
the dynamic properties of implementations of routing protocols and the
nature of dynamic updates that occur in today's networks, as it would
be a worry that we are constraining the deployment environment
in such a manner that we are attempting to fit tomorrow's network into
yesterday's capabilities.
regards,
Geoff