[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Aug 23 04:53:12 EDT 2006
- Previous message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Next message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> RFC 4193 ULAs do not insure global uniqueness, nor do they offer an > outside authority that documents if a given organization has a legitimate > claim to use a specific address in the event of a collision. > > We need a mechanism to guarantee global uniqueness between us and our > managed customer networks. We are in the same position. In addition, we operate a global internetwork that is disjoint from the public Internet. Nevertheless, it is an internetwork connecting over 10,000 sites from well over a thousand different organizations. There the requirement for globally unique registered addresses is exactly the same as the Internet requirement. Given that v6 has the address space available, I don't see why the reticence to allow for microallocations. I can guarantee that any prefixes in our global routing table will have zero impact on the public Internet routing table because as a matter of policy we do not allow routes to be exchanged with the public Internet. And I believe there are several other such global Internets in existence, perhaps as many as a dozen. IP addresses, v6 or otherwise, are not the exclusive property of the public Internet. They belong to everybody who uses the Internet Protocol (IP) regardless of whether they exchange routes on the public network. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Next message: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list