-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
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).
Do you mean one (1) /32 that can be cut up into smaller allocations (/48) which then should appear in the global routing table, allowing the services that reside in those blocks to be anycast? Or do you mean multiple /32's as the case is for the moment*? * - list will be presented at the upcoming RIPE meeting in the IPv6-WG. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBP/w7TCmqKFIzPnwjEQKFVQCdGlarkZfl5JpNemb67/+BCH7e9hQAnRIZ TaEiEmlyYzeW/IC9b6T0kUsT =ViVg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----