[101378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Jan 2 16:37:07 2008
Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>,
"NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24520801021230r43d18d4cgf84f4556b26057db@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:34:38 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2-Jan-2008, at 15:30, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> 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).
The community who would like the knob not to be "deaggregate" are the
same ones that are doing the deaggregation, which I think is as it
should be from a macro level (an organism whose behaviour is harmful
to itself will presumably, eventually, learn) even if it's still
problematic at a micro level (the individual ASes doing the
deaggregation enjoy all the benefit with only a tiny fraction of the
collective cost).
As to "there must be better knobs" I think it may be a little late for
that; by design (or as a consequence of it) the set of IPv6 knobs is
the same as the set of IPv4 knobs.
Joe
