nanog mailing list archives
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell () martin fl us>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:45:10 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:27:54AM -0400, Greg Maxwell wrote:The reason they don't allocate /24's is because without aggregation the Internet is not scalable. Perhaps they are being too agressive, but the reasoning is sound.Aggregation buys time, that's it. Aggregation does not make the current routing methods any more scalable.
In IPv4 yes, because you can't have perfect aggregation, too much network multihoming and old prefixes and it's to painful to change address blocks. In IPv6, if implimented right aggregation provides for virtually limitless scalability for unicast traffic.
Current thread:
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20, (continued)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Patrick Evans (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Message not available
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 10)
- Message not available
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Majdi S. Abbas (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 James Thomason (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Christopher A. Woodfield (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Joe Abley (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 David R. Conrad (Apr 10)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 mike harrison (Apr 09)
- RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 John Fraizer (Apr 10)
- Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20 Greg Maxwell (Apr 10)