[117805] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Petach)
Sat Oct 3 23:20:02 2009
In-Reply-To: <200910040128.CAA11324@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 20:19:24 -0700
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>wrote:
> > Is there some central repository for information on this? We usually
> > seem to find out about such changes out of the ARIN region a bit after
> > the fact.
>
> Have we not learnt from v4?
>
> If there are to be filters then they should be defined once and never
> changed as people will fail to update
>
Yay! We can return to classful routing again. That sure worked out well
for us the first time around. ^_^;
> If a different allocation requirement arises then start a new prefix
> (v6 is big enough to handle this) and define its filter once. Do not
> allocate it from an existing range and expect people to adjust their
> filters.
>
So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
and give back the /32? Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead.
Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
*removes tongue from cheek*
> brandon
>
>
Matt
