[101374] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Jan 2 15:40:45 2008
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 15:30:48 -0500
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: "Joe Abley" <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>,
"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <E098A79D-140D-4E3E-94B6-3D5E2D9EF80C@ca.afilias.info>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 2, 2008 1:05 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>
> On 2-Jan-2008, at 10:21, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > On 2 jan 2008, at 6:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> out of curiousity how is this sort of thing supposed to be done in
> >> v6?
> >> (traffic engineering given the '1 prefix per ISP' standard mantra)
> >
> > AS path prepending, local preference, that kind of thing...
>
> Common practice with IPv4 seems to suggest that those knobs aren't
> sufficient in real life; people still find it necessary to carve up
> their aggregates and announce more-specifics in strategic directions.
> I would suggest that not *all* observed instances of such
> deaggregation are due to operator ignorance :-)
>
I think this goes back to my point about DHCP, today there is a
business practice and set of business requirements that work for a
host of reasons. Expecting that in v6 these requirements will
evaporate is not wise. There will have to be some useful TE knobs, I
think the operations community would probably like to see those knobs
NOT be 'deaggragate' so what other options are there for someone with
a single prefix (especially when that prefix is very large).
-chris
