[147030] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Wed Nov 30 17:05:57 2011
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:05:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <52B9067E-E0EA-41F8-A28E-8B5FE7321DD4@exonetric.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> To be honest, I can't work out the point of preferring a /64 in the
> first place if
> you're not using SLAAC and I'm not sure why SLAAC wanted more than 48
> bits.
>=20
> If you use broad ACLs to lock down to a /126 or /112 equivalent, why
> bother with
> the /64 in the first place?
>=20
> However, I'm new to the IPv6 business, so I'm sure I'll work it out
> eventually.
Or you might do what a lot of us have done: get sick of arguing with the ev=
angelists about how /64's don't make sense for everyone in every scenario. =
Get sick of trying to argue that every home's CPE doesn't need a /48 deleg=
ated to it so that it can automatically subdelegate longer networks to devi=
ces which will in turn subdelegate even longer prefixes to devices which "s=
omething that hasn't been invented yet will use, and if you don't set it up=
this way, history will prove that you're an unimaginative fool". Get sick=
of hearing "It's a huge address space, so don't worry about being conserva=
tive - sitting 'on the shelf' or sitting unused in a network are the same t=
hing" (I guess we'll migrate to an even bigger address space if we someday =
have other stellar bodies in our local star system to send packets to, desp=
ite the average home network utilizing far, far less than .00[...]01% of th=
eir address space... - add a lot more 0's if the /48 guys win out...)
This new IPv6 world is full of lazy evangelists, who are so excited about s=
ame-sized subnets, stateless address configuration and globally unique and =
routable addresses for purposes that no one can quite imagine yet, that the=
y cannot engage in a logical and rational discussion with the rest of us. =
Instead, we go back and forth over the same concerns, until the patience of=
the list has been utterly worn out - at which point, these individuals alw=
ays throw their hands in the air, and exclaim: "You're wrong, and your cust=
omers will tell you that with their feet", and presume that they have then =
proven you wrong.
As has been pointed out, there is a lot of human nature at work here: these=
individuals have made low-level emotional investments in their arguments, =
and divided the IPv6-think world into two categories: Us (right), and Not U=
s (wrong). When someone does this, it can take a significant amount of psy=
chology to get the conversation to a rational place, and unless you have a =
real need to see eye to eye with them, it's often easier to move on. In an=
y case, do the research and testing, and make sure that at least your own d=
eployments have rational addressing policies (whatever you determine that m=
ight be).
Nathan Eisenberg
