Re: I-D Action: draft-foglar-ipv6-ull-routing-00.txt

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> "One of the goals of IPv6 was to have a sufficiently long address to 
> allow grouping in fields to simplify routing decisions."

Well, it's certainly used that way. If you go to an RIR you can ask for a 
lot more address-space than you can in IPv4 "to simplify routing".

So if I say "this device only sends /50 to the network, it has 48 ports, 
each port gets /56, that means I am never using a /52 out of this /50", 
then that's typically fine.

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-552#3

"3.4. Aggregation

Wherever possible, address space should be distributed in a hierarchical 
manner, according to the topology of network infrastructure. This is 
necessary to permit the aggregation of routing information by ISPs and to 
limit the expansion of Internet routing tables.

This goal is particularly important in IPv6 addressing, where the size of 
the total address pool creates significant implications for both internal 
and external routing.

IPv6 address policies should seek to avoid fragmentation of address 
ranges.

Further, RIRs should apply practices that maximise the potential for 
subsequent allocations to be made contiguous with past allocations 
currently held. However, there can be no guarantee of contiguous 
allocation."

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]