RFC 1887 states: "4.3.2 Indirect Providers (Backbones)
There does not at present appear to be a strong case for direct providers to take their address spaces from the the IPv6 space of an indirect provider (e.g., backbone). The benefit in routing data abstraction is relatively small. The number of direct providers today is in the tens and an order of magnitude increase would not cause an undue burden on the backbones. Also, it may be expected that as time goes by there will be increased direct interconnection of the direct providers, leaf routing domains directly attached to the backbones, and international links directly attached to the providers. Under these circumstances, the distinction between direct and indirect providers may become blurred. An additional factor that discourages allocation of IPv6 addresses from a backbone prefix is that the backbones and their attached providers are perceived as being independent. Providers may take their long-haul service from one or more backbones, or may switch backbones should a more cost-effective service be provided elsewhere. Having IPv6 addresses derived from a backbone is inconsistent with the nature of the relationship." Is this coherent with TLA and NLA asignment rules presented in RFC 2450 and with RFC 2374? Also, RFC 1887 proposes a multi-homing solution (solution 1) based on " One possible solution is for each multi-homed organization to obtain its IPv6 address space independently of the providers to which it is attached" Is this solution compatible with RFC 2450 and RFC 2374? Regards, marcelo -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
