[117932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Practical numbers for IPv6 allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Tue Oct 6 13:11:51 2009
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:10:47 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <25fd01ca4691$cf0a6e50$6d1f4af0$@net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Tony Hain wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
>> In the following I'm assuming that you're familiar with the fact that
>> staying on the 4-byte boundaries makes sense because it makes reverse
>> DNS delegation easier. It also makes the math easier.
>
> I assume you meant 4-bit. ;)
Grrr, I hate when I do that. I spent quite a bit of time on this post,
and the one time I remembered that I needed to go back and
double-check what I wrote there I wasn't at the keyboard. Thanks for
keeping me honest.
There was one other thing you wrote that I wanted to clarify, you
indicated that I was arguing for ISPs to only get one shot at an IPv6
allocation. Since my post was already really long I chose to leave out
the bit about how (TMK, which could be outdated) the RIRs are
reserving a bit or two for their allocations to ISPs so going back and
expanding should be an easy thing to do. On a personal note, I hope
that we DO need to expand IPv6 allocations to ISPs as this thing
finally gets deployed.
I'm not responding to the rest of your post because you and I have
already had those discussions in person on more than one occasion and
I know I'm not going to change your mind. I do think it's extremely
gracious of you to say that my post was "well reasoned" though. :)
Thanks to the others who had nice things to say as well.
Regards,
Doug
