[147053] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Johnson)
Thu Dec 1 09:13:11 2011
From: Brian Johnson <bjohnson@drtel.com>
To: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:10:02 +0000
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C286B60F4BF@ex-mb-1.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Nathan,
I respect your positions, but you presume too much. I'm in no way an evang=
elist, but I agree with most of the points made by those you categorize as =
such. I'll reply specifically in-line.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nathan@atlasnetworks.us]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:05 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
>networks?
>
<SNIP>
>
>Or you might do what a lot of us have done: get sick of arguing with the
>evangelists about how /64's don't make sense for everyone in every scenari=
o.
>Get sick of trying to argue that every home's CPE doesn't need a /48
>delegated to it so that it can automatically subdelegate longer networks t=
o
>devices which will in turn subdelegate even longer prefixes to devices whi=
ch
>"something 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 conservativ=
e -
>sitting 'on the shelf' or sitting unused in a network are the same thing" =
(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, despite the av=
erage
>home network utilizing far, far less than .00[...]01% of their address spa=
ce... -
>add a lot more 0's if the /48 guys win out...)
It sounds like you are still in the IPv4 paradigm. I agree with your statem=
ents, but not your tone or implications. I think you misread people who hav=
e immense knowledge on the subject matter and care deeply with people who a=
re grinding an axe for political or emotional purposes. If someone argued w=
ith you on the subtleties of gravity and doesn't accept the basic premise o=
f gravity, you would likely respond similarly.
>
>This new IPv6 world is full of lazy evangelists, who are so excited about =
same-
>sized subnets, stateless address configuration and globally unique and
>routable addresses for purposes that no one can quite imagine yet, that th=
ey
>cannot engage in a logical and rational discussion with the rest of us. I=
nstead,
>we go back and forth over the same concerns, until the patience of the lis=
t has
>been utterly worn out - at which point, these individuals always throw the=
ir
>hands in the air, and exclaim: "You're wrong, and your customers will tell=
you
>that with their feet", and presume that they have then proven you wrong.
I'm rubber your glue.... Never mind. The things you are minimalizing are s=
ome of the design specifications of the protocol. It's like arguing about t=
he fact that IPv4 has certain headers and they are dumb. GET OVER IT!
And no one will ever prove you wrong. It's that everyone else will do one t=
hing and you will do something else. Live with your decision.
This debate result can be seen in situations where people are too far apart=
at the start. This may be due to the paradigm shift to IPv6 from IPv4.
>
>As has been pointed out, there is a lot of human nature at work here: thes=
e
>individuals have made low-level emotional investments in their arguments,
>and divided the IPv6-think world into two categories: Us (right), and Not =
Us
>(wrong). When someone does this, it can take a significant amount of
>psychology to get the conversation to a rational place, and unless you hav=
e a
>real need to see eye to eye with them, it's often easier to move on. In a=
ny
>case, do the research and testing, and make sure that at least your own
>deployments have rational addressing policies (whatever you determine that
>might be).
I wish you hadn't gone into the psychological babble here. You are right ab=
out this though. Do what you think is best for you. Please do not denigrate=
others for not coming to the same conclusions as you.
When you ask for an opinion on this type of medium, about a controversial t=
opic, you will get this type of thread. Live it.... Love it!
- Brian Johnson
