Subject: IPv6 hierarchical routing: RFC 2374

From: "Karuppiah, Ettikan Kandasamy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:19:29 +0800

Hi,
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!

What about 'host-route' advertisement?

thank you.

-ettikan 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:56:15 +0900

>Referring to the above RFC(2374);

	you may want to check RFC2772 for current 6bone operation guidelines.

>What about 'host-route' advertisement?

	are you suggesting to have 2^128 routing entries worldwide?

itojun

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:59:56 +0300 (EEST)

> What about 'host-route' advertisement?

The prefixes can be of variable length, at least internally.

I'd filter out all routes more specific than /35.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:35:24 -0400

> sizes are allowed to be added at the routing table regardless of

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