[111468] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri Feb 6 08:51:32 2009
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:51:04 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@csc.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF19016523.6707EF74-ON85257555.004A67D6-85257555.004A9CA0@csc.com>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Joe Loiacono wrote:
>
> Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the
> routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big.
Let's also not forget, that many organizations went from multiple
allocations to a single allocation. If we all filter anything longer
than /32, we'll rearrange the flow of traffic that many over the years
have altered through longer prefixes. Even I suspect I may occasionally
have to let a /40 out now and then to alter it's traffic from the rest
of the aggregate. Traffic comes to you as it wants to come to you. The
only pseudo remedy that currently exists is to move some prefixes over
to a different path. If you only have a /32, that'll be a bit hard.
This, more than anything, is what will effect this list and the people
on it where IPv6 is concerned. Filtering longer than /33, 35, 40? Dare
we go to /48 and treat them as the new /24? I know for myself, traffic
manipulation can't begin until /40 (unless I split them further apart).
Jack
