[118195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP customer assignments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Tue Oct 13 20:43:28 2009
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:42:44 -0400
From: Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>
To: eric clark <cabenth@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5b602b520910131424k2d8d5e2eue645cb8edd4384ec@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: swm@emanon.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
While entirely possible, I actually view it going the other way. RFC
3627 points out some nice issues as far as DAD and anycast operation is
concerned, but what I'd see (just my random opinion as I haven't
bothered to write an RFC) is that it would make entirely much more sense
to come up with a structure to STOP the anycast performance on a link
that is point-to-point.
While there are 340 undecillion addresses, that doesn't mean we need to
waste a /64 on a link that will possibly only have two addresses anyway.
My two cents.
Scott
eric clark wrote:
> So far, I have only dabbled with IPv6, but my reading of the RFCs is that
> VLSM for lengths beyond /64 is not required. Subsequently, to use anything
> longer is an enormous gamble in an enterprise environment. I envision
> upgrading code one day and finding that your /127 isn't supported any more
> and they forgot to mention it. I'll stick to /64, though it does seem a
> horrible waste of space.
>
> Someone else might have read the RFC differently though.
>
>
> Eric Clark
>
>
