Subject: Re: a response to "A Simple Solution for IPv6 Multihoming"

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:26:24 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Bradley Rey
nolds writes:

> > 
> that is not analogous in the least to the hierarchy imposed in the ipv6
> addressing architecture.  cidr only specifies more possible subdivisions
> of the addressing space which permits you to aggregate in more flexible
> fashion. it does not mandate an aggregation hierarchy in the least.

See RFC 1466.

		--Steve Bellovin

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Bradley Reynolds <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:36:24 -0400 (EDT)

> > fashion. it does not mandate an aggregation hierarchy in the least.

rfc1466 has to do with cidr?

it mandates an allocation hierarchy, not an aggregation hierarchy.
aggregation can be done in conformance to the allocation hierarchy,
but is not necessary.

people are still free to announce whatever specificity they want.

BR

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:28:16 -0500

> rfc1466 has to do with cidr?

It would be completely meaningless without CIDR

> aggregation can be done in conformance to the allocation hierarchy,

Mathematically, it *is* necessary. Binary trees are binary trees.
> people are still free to announce whatever specificity they want.

Fortunately, the major ISPs have been very responsible about
this, which is why the default free table has been growing
so slowly, and why there are relatively few holes in CIDR blocks.

   Brian