[117892] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Mon Oct 5 20:28:55 2009
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:25:57 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <20091006000957.GD22728@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Robert.E.VanOrmer@frb.gov
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 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".
There's a good reason for that: ipv6 isn't intended to do anything
about disaggregation. Which as you rightly point out is a problem in
ipv4 too. IIRC, there was a contingent who thought that address space
and aggregation needed to be considered as a single problem. They
lost the argument and hence ipv6 as it is today and the previously
unsolved aggregation problem... still unsolved.
Mike
