[136861] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 5 22:49:53 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C286B35D455@ex-mb-1.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:44:53 -0800
To: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:38 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> Still, that is a considerable number of bits we'll have left when the =
dust
>> settles and the RIR allocation rate drastically slows.
>=20
> Like it did for IPv4? ;)
>=20
> -Nathan
>=20
It long since would have if ISPs didn't have to come back annually (or =
more frequently in many cases)
to get additional addresses to support their growth.
In IPv6, we should be looking to do 5 or 10 year allocations. We can =
afford to be fairly speculative in
our allocations in order to preserve greater aggregation.
In iPv4, the registries were constantly trying to balance shortage of =
addresses with shortage
of routing table slots. In IPv6, we can focus on rational allocation for =
administrative purposes
with some consideration given to routing table slots.
It makes for a significantly different set of tradeoffs and =
optimizations that should be used in
address policy.
That is why I wrote 2011-3 and why we passed 2010-8.
Owen
