On 2007-09-18 19:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This becomes important when we consider non-trivial hierarchies of
allocations, such as RIR->LIR->ISP, where internally further allocations
are made for internal aggregation purposes.
Having that many layers of allocation hierarchy is an artificial
choice, and the aggregation argument only applies *within* a
single ISP's allocation. If we had flat allocation from IANA
to ISPs, your argument would go away. So assuming we keep the
artificial choice of allocation via RIRs and LIRs, that simply has
to work in a way that emulates flat allocation.
This is because, lest we forget, that aggregation is tied to allocation.
We cannot aggregate that which was not allocated suitably.
LIRs and RIRs are not aggregators. It is of no importance whether
the ISPs who get their allocations from the same registry happen
to aggregate with each other or not. In fact, it's wrong to aim
for that, because it wastes address space.
Brian C
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
