[ppml] geo addressing

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Nov 23 04:57:48 EST 2005

> If they are
> connected via both, then we're gonna have the multihoming
> argument (again).

We are also talking about corner cases. No addressing
plan will solve everyone's business problems. If they
are multihomed via two cities they can renumber into
a classic IPv6 allocation. Current ARIN policies also
have limitations that force people to do things like

> Yes, a strict geographic address proponent would number them
> out of the geographic prefix regardless of connectivity.  That's
> perhaps not the only way...

Choices are good.

Also, because IPv6 is not widely deployed yet we have not
seen all that it can do. The company above could solve their
renumbering problem using IPv6 NAT. I am not referring to 
the stateful packet inspection that is called NAT in the
IPv4 world but a simple one-to-one mapping of IPv6 addresses.

As long as we keep the classic IPv6 addressing plan there
is no need for geotop addressing to solve all corner cases.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list