[101293] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 Addressing Plans
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (michael.dillon@bt.com)
Thu Dec 27 14:53:31 2007
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:56:19 -0000
In-Reply-To: <4773F603.9030907@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com>
From: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> > -Do not assign from PoP aggregates
>=20
> What do you mean with the above? If I understand the line=20
> correctly, then I disagree with it.
I don't mean anything by that, I just quoted it from the
wiki page. If you disgree then you should add something
to the page. I have a vague memory that this advice was
given in a NANOG presentation on IPv6 but it would not
surprise me if it was a case where one size does not fit all.
PoP aggregates sounds like a good idea to me, but given the
need to meet a certain HD ratio in order to get a larger
RIR allocation, it might be risky for an ISP to do that.
This is one area where the operator environment differs
from the enterprise.
--Michael Dillon
