Re: IPv6 and the "average user"
Alexander O. Yuriev (alex@bach.cis.temple.edu)
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:39:47 -0500
Your message dated: 23 Nov 1996 19:26:44 GMT
>
> Kai Henningsen <kai@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> > To keep them alive as long as possible, routes need to have long prefixes
> > - or, to put that differently, providers have to share one or very few
> > prefixes among all their customers.
>
> > And *that* makes for too few IP addresses for every customer.
>
> Does that mean with IPv6 Address Blocks will be assigned to ISP and the
> Customer has to switch Networks if they change Providers?
>
> > However, you'll still need to change your addresses when you switch ISPs,
> > unless you are big enough so the backbone routers will be willing to make
> > routing table entries just for you. Because of this, renumbering a network
>
> > is a lot easier in IPv6 - each box *must* support being told their address
>
> > by the router. At the router, just configure the new 80 bit prefix. The
> > rest is automatic. (Well, if you do DNS, you'll have to change that, too.)
Umm... From the little I know about routing I would say that a statement of
"However, you'll still need to change your addresses when you switch ISPs
unless you are big enough so the backbone routers will be willing to
makerouting table entries just for you." is completely incorrect. Lets face
it, we are multihomed and we will be multihomed. This means that we are
stuck with dynamic routing protocols with routes winning based on their
specificity. Yes, it is true that in some cases some top-level carriers do
not listen to route announcements of for two few class C in a row unless
they are their customers.
ALex