Subject: RE: Address allocation schemes (Re: Naming and site-local)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:48:17 -0800

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> metro addressing?

You can have a quick look at this, WIP.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt

> btw, my current naive prediction of the way the
> Internet will evolve is that unless new invention
> occurs, the default-free zone will eventually be
> flat-routing on the number of ISPs in the world,
> and that this number will have 5 digits.

What would be the difference between this and the good old "8K DFZ",
except one more digit and that ISPs could get a block matching their
size instead of what used to be called a TLA?

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:36:19 +0100

> http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt

hey - if Bergen gets a /32, Trondheim should get one too :-)
but this really belongs on multi6, I think.

> size instead of what used to be called a TLA?

Apart from not having any administratively fixed boundaries, I haven't seen 
any need for a difference until someone comes along with a genuinely better 
idea.

but as I said, I am naive in those matters.

                  Harald