--- Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
so, if we had a free hand and ignored the dogmas, what would we change about the v6 architecture to make it really deployable and scalable and have compatibility with and a transition path from v4 without massive kludging, complexity, and long term cost?
Okay, I'll bite - If I were king, here's what I'd want to see: I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4 universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any customer can make do with a single IPv4-size universe, and make the default end-customer allocation a /96. ISPs could still get gigantic prefixes (like a /23 or something), to make sure that an ISP would never need more than one prefix. I'd move us to the 1-prefix-per-ASN approach as much as possible - reserve a single /16 for multihoming end-sites, and let that be a swamp. There are under 32K multihomed ASNs in use now, and while demand is growing, if we can keep organizations to one prefix each, the routing table stays pretty darn small. Designate a /96 as "private" space for use on devices which don't connect to the Internetv6. To qualify for an "ISP" allocation, an entity would have to agree to route the swamp space, and not route the "private" space. And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony... -David Barak- -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant- __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs