[101311] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Addressing Plans
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Fri Dec 28 01:08:48 2007
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:08:40 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: <michael.dillon@bt.com>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001A3D1F0@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:56:19 -0000
<michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
>
> > > -Do not assign from PoP aggregates
> >
> > What do you mean with the above? If I understand the line
> > 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.
Probably even better, raise the point on the V6OPS working group mailing
list, so that it can be included in the "IPv6 Unicast Address
Assignment Considerations" Internet Draft/future RFC. Addressing
options, and the pros and cons of them are what the draft is about.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt
> 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
Regards,
Mark.
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
alert."
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
