Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: [icann-candidates] IPv6

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Andreas Bogk wrote:
>lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) writes:
>> As written three weeks ago: BGP4 and IPv6 provider prefixes are limited. So
>> IPv6 does not solve the problem of provider attitude, but eases routing.
>
>Last time I checked, provider-based prefixes were obsolete.

I'll read the newest RfCs about this. My knowledge of IPv6 comes from a
lesson I hold last year for a larger internet company from Jena. Routing
issues I discussed two years ago. I'll be wrong. Thank you for correcting me.

>> OTOH IPv6 dramatically reduce the number of official numbers given to
>> office or home computers due to the link/side local uni/anycast
>> addresses and autoconfiguration features. So IPv6 will serve the job
>> much better than
>
>Link local addresses will reduce the number of transfer nets, but that's
>about it. Autoconfiguration will even increase the number of assigned
>addresses, because the address is generated from the EUI-64 address, wich
>is 64 bits in size. Any LAN will end up with a /64 network. But that's not
>a problem, because we have 2^64 of them.

AFAIK autoconfiguration uses link and side local addresses. But this may
changed in the meantime. Thanx for pointing my eyes to this subject.

>> IPv4, but cause other problems, because the primary provider prefixes
>> are limited and should mirror the current interconnection state, which
>> will not work in the long term.
>
>Of course it will work. IPv6 contains intelligent network renumbering.
>With IPv6, renumbering will become common practice.

I hear your profund statement but I wonder if it will really work.