> > With the current draft, that is correct. With Paul's proposed changes of > > 27 Jun, they definitely aggregate at the LIR and RIR levels, making it > > much harder to defend the position that they won't end up in the DFZ.
the aggregation present in that version was unintentional. if you look at the actual <http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt> you'll see that it recommends that allocations be deliberately nonaggregatable. > I'm not quite following your logic here. If ARIN allocates ULA-G space > from a distinct netblock, how does that make it any harder for transit > providers to filter routes from fc00::/7, reduce their incentive to do so, > or create an incentive not to? my concern about aggregation is that if someone receives 8 /48's that are aligned as a /45 then they could conceivably advertise it as a /45. i hope that IANA will allocate nonaligned blocks, or perhaps give even numbers to one RIR and odd numbers to the next, and that the RIRs and LIRs will do likewise. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
