> Referring to the above RFC(2374);
> The aim of Aggregatable addressing is to simplify routing compared to
> current CIDR, at each level. Does it dictates, that routers at each level
> will have entries only for the specified prefixes? For example, long-haul
> providers backbone router has entries of only /16 prefix route entries and
> NLA1 router's will have /48 prefix entry, etc. Or mix of different prefix
> sizes are allowed to be added at the routing table regardless of
> it's level!
There will be a mix of prefixes supported at most levels. The idea
that there could be a strict heirarchy (with say, some routers needing
only /16 routes and none with longer prefixes) is an attractive idea,
but is not in line with reality in IPv4 today, or how traditional IPv6
operators expect IPv6 to be done.
This general topic may better be discussed in the multi6 WG.
Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
