[120492] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Tue Dec 22 21:52:55 2009
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:52:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <F7A56CCE-631A-4519-8348-71FD126D2E42@daork.net>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Nathan Ward" <nanog@daork.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nanog@daork.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:34 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
>=20
> The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story.
...
> You will find that most networks filtering /48s allow them from the
> pool with only /48s in it.
That makes perfect sense.=20
=20
> If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if not
> then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do
> filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect.
I can't in good conscience justify a /32. That is just too much space.
I believe I can, however, justify a separate /48 in Europe and APAC with
my various offices and data centers in that region coming from the /48
for that region.
> Insert routing table explosion religious war here, with snipes from
> people saying that we need a new routing system, etc. etc.
Eh, it isn't so bad. I could think of some ways things could have been
better (e.g. providers use a 32bit ASN as the prefix with a few "magic"
destination prefixes for multicast, anycast, futurecast and multihomed
end users use a 16-bit regional prefix with a 16-bit ASN as a 32-bit
prefix) but we are too far down the road to complain too much about that
sort of stuff.
> So with that in mind, do your concerns from your original post still
> make sense?
Thanks, Nathan, and let's say that I am somewhat less apprehensive than
I was.
George
