[101395] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Thu Jan 3 04:11:44 2008
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:10:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <b4504ba0801030052p2f67e3eeifd426e80c3be4c2e@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rick Astley wrote:
> If Bob has a multihomed network, he can't just give one /48 to a customer in
> NY and the next one to a customer in CA unless he wants to fill up Internet
> routing tables with /48's, so he will have to assign large aggregate blocks
> to each region.
Could you please elaborate on this? Unless Bob is actually breaking the
"single AS needs to have common IGP and be connected internally", I don't
understand the relevance of your statement above. Just because he's
multihomed doesn't mean he can't just announce /32 and then internally
handle the routing (of course he should do aggregation though, but perhaps
is smaller chunks).
> It seems to me while being extra super sure we meet goal 1 of making
> sure NAT is gone for ever (and ever) we fail goal 2 of not allocating a
> bunch of prefixes to ISP's that are too small.
Well, if you need a /20 for your business needs, you should request it.
Afaik as long as you justify it, it shouldn't be a problem?
But I do agree that /56 should be enough for residential users for quite a
while, so let's start there.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
