[117884] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Mon Oct 5 20:10:39 2009
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:09:57 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Antonio Querubin <tony@lava.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0910051353540.811@cust11794.lava.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov wrote:
>
> >The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
> >any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
>
> A lesson learned is that thinking about address allocation is something
> you do not want to spend too many precious seconds of your life on.
> That's one reason why the space was designed to be so big. Being
> penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't really save you much in the IPv6
> address space.
.. address aggregation?
.. convergence time?
I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
a few ISP's deaggregated view of their "local" internal networks versus
a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it "better".
adrian
