-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On onsdag, jan 7, 2004, at 17:32 Europe/Stockholm, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:26:20PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.
I agree.
I would be happy to sacrifice one routing table entry per ccTLD, though, if it increases reliability of the whole DNS system. Speaking for my network only, of course.
(This is not contradicting myself, I want to point out. The network of the DENIC "office" is not special - but the name servers are. The more, the better, and there is no way to do anycasting without an additional routing table entry).
We solved this for IPv4 more or less with the PI-TF. Perhaps we should take this on as a point for IPv6. Agreed that it's not really the same problem, but partly the same methods could be used. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/xUz6arNKXTPFCVEQLOpACfQn/IkejCIeuGrFMOK/Bs7R5w8eMAmwai 4HIoOL8SU+9O40pbPTzVdlif =lzjl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----