[123246] in North American Network Operators' Group
IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Magill)
Thu Mar 4 13:55:39 2010
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:52:24 -0800
From: "Thomas Magill" <tmagill@providecommerce.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
So to start off, I'm new to following this list so if these points have
already been beaten into the ground, feel free to tell me to shut up.
=20
So two things I wonder about the preservation of current IP4 space and
delaying IP6 are:
=20
1. Why don't providers use /31 addresses for P2P links? This
works fine per rfc 3021 but nobody seems to believe it or use it. Are
there any major manufacturers out there that do not support it?=20
2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious
answer is that some hardware may not handle it... How is that hardware
going to handle an IP6 table then? I have had several occasions where
functionally I needed to advertise for different sites but only needed
20-30 addresses which is a complete waste of a /24. How hard would it
be to start allowing /25s when compared to trying to roll out IP6?
=20
The intention of this isn't to start a "what's good or bad about IP6 and
what still doesn't work" debate.. I'm just generally curious about how
these two seem like easy ways to make more efficient use of what we have
already.
=20
Thomas Magill
Network Engineer
Office: (858) 909-3777
Cell: (858) 869-9685
mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com <mailto:tmagill@providecommerce.com>=20
provide-commerce=20
4840 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
=20
ProFlowers <http://www.proflowers.com/> | redENVELOPE
<http://www.redenvelope.com/> | Cherry Moon Farms
<http://www.cherrymoonfarms.com/> | Shari's Berries
<http://www.berries.com/>=20
=20
