[117991] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Thu Oct 8 10:31:47 2009
In-Reply-To: <4ACDF61E.9030900@xyonet.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:30:13 -0400
From: TJ <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: trejrco@gmail.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
And I will play devil's advocate to the devil's advocate ... wait, does that
make me God's advocate? Nice!
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a curmudgeon and let me play devil's advocate for a minute. I
> realize that the address space is enormous; gigantic, even, but if we treat
> it as cavalierly as you all are proposing, it will get used up. If its
> treated like an infinite resource that will never, ever be used up as we
> have done with every other resource on the planet, won't we find ourselves
> in a heap of trouble?
> Curtis
But the thing is - no-one is proposing we treat it as infinite - just that
we treat it the way it was designed to be used.
The IETF community "did the math" and decided a /48 per customer was both
scalable and sufficient.
The community, by and in large, decided that /56s were more appropriate for
"small customers" and that is fine, even if some still view it as
additional, unneeded complexity.
My opinion, based on having done the math as well and operational experience
to date, seems to jive that /48s (or even moreso /56s) will work. So let's
get to it!
/TJ
