Slashdot Mirror

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234

With IPv6, address space assigned to large ISPs will be a lot better aggregated. Of course that won't stop them from breaking it up into a lot of prefixes, but hopefully that will only be for their really sub-autonomous networks. Lots of big ISPs were given some big chunks like /16, but they got those many times. So that means many prefixes announced even if they could aggregate them if adjacent. At least with IPv6 they can be given all the space they will need for 100+ years right now.

Routing in IPv6 is also different. The low 64 bits as I understand it won't play any part as that is pretty much going to a single LAN, so the routing announcements shouldn't need any more than the high 64 bits, and maybe even just the high 32 bits. Here's the list of RFCs that match string search for "ipv6" and "route". I haven't actually read them, so maybe you can easily find where I'm all wrong.

rfc1752|rfc1809|rfc1825|rfc1883|rfc1884|rfc1887|rf c1888|rfc1933|rfc1970|rfc1981|rfc1999|rfc2000|rfc2 019|rfc2080|rfc2101|rfc2185|rfc2199|rfc2200|rfc229 2|rfc2300|rfc2353|rfc2373|rfc2400|rfc2401|rfc2460| rfc2461|rfc2465|rfc2466|rfc2473|rfc2491|rfc2492|rf c2500|rfc2526|rfc2529|rfc2545|rfc2546|rfc2590|rfc2 600|rfc2626|rfc2700|rfc2710|rfc2711|rfc2740|rfc274 5|rfc2746|rfc2765|rfc2766|rfc2767|rfc2772|rfc2799| rfc2800|rfc2874|rfc2884|rfc2893|rfc2894|rfc2899|rf c2900|rfc2956|rfc2983|rfc3000|rfc3002|rfc3053|rfc3 056|rfc3068|rfc3089|rfc3111|rfc3132|rfc3162|rfc317 5|rfc3178|rfc3234