Re: IPv6 and the "average user"

Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@inka.de)
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 21:32:35 +0100 (MET)

> 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.

Ummm.. since the routing tables are already too full I dont see a chance to
handel all the ipv4 routes and New routes for 128Bit Addresses without some
rediesigned policy. It is simply not pssible to carry very single Class-C
net in the routing tables. Therefoe enforcing NetBlocks for providers is a
very good decission to enable Backbone routers to carry on their taks.

> 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.

This means the nets are not or very bad connected to the internet. This
problem needs to be solved. The easiest way is to force customers to switch
net (prefixes) on switching ISPs.. anyway.. anybody knows about a paper to
that issue?

Greetings
Bernd

-- 
  (OO)      -- Bernd_Eckenfels@Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de --
 ( .. )  ecki@{inka.de,linux.de,debian.org} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o     *plush*  2048/93600EFD  eckes@irc  +4972573817  BE5-RIPE
(O____O)   You can check-out any time u like, but u can never leave