[117811] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Butterworth)
Sun Oct 4 11:17:49 2009
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:16:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > 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. ^_^;
We have already, all we're discussing now is if we do a better job
of implementing it.
Classful suffered from lack of space in each range and too coarse a
set of fixed ranges, all fixable in v6 so perhaps it's not so bad?
> 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?
And what if you need a few /48's, then you're open to others
advertising some of yours too.
With no organised mechanism of communicating acceptable prefix lengths
to all routers [1] then we either do nothing and let anarchy rule, do
something that overly constrains or do half the job and have both
problems.
> 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*
What would be most efficient for all? Semi classful or not I don't mind
but it does seem pointless to have been going round the same circle for
so many years.
brandon
[1] sbgp would be secure anarchy
