[165942] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Azinger, Marla)
Thu Sep 26 12:16:47 2013
From: "Azinger, Marla" <Marla.Azinger@FTR.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:16:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20130926092325.GM16712@haller.ws>
Cc: "bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com" <bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There are many ways to mediate this. No matter what one is chosen a balanc=
e between market, Networks and policy will need to be met. And in the end =
Networks will do what is best for their network. However if there is a nor=
m of some kind, then at least there will be a target to hover around.
Market & Networks-=20
Pro- Entities managing the health of their network would be less willing to=
route what would result in overload.
Con- The more financially healthy Entities can afford faster turn over and =
burn to new routers and circuit upgrades. The upper hand of growth goes to =
them since overload wouldn't be as much as an internal issue as it would be=
to other smaller networks. The global scheme gets lost in the eye of the =
mighty dollar. This is not anything new market pattern wise but Larger/Fin=
ancially healthy entities would survive better than any smaller provider.
Policy
Pro- there would be a set standard to target
Con- policy is managed by the community and not always supporting every bus=
iness model equally. Plus policy can become a moving target as we have wit=
nessed with IPv4.
List Publishing-Policy
Pro- qualified ASN's are approved a range of subnet size of route advertis=
ements and any "too specific/smaller" advertisements are ignored if not on=
the list.
Con- this is policy. No one tells a network what to do. =20
Set Boundary policy=20
Pro- something exists as a target to help manage the issue
Con- policy is very likely to become a moving target. No one tells a netwo=
rk what to do.=20
Keep Head in Sand
Pro- Happy
Con- Calamity...but when? Or will there be a new option...the next best thi=
ng. Hope in one hand and @#$$ in the other. One usually fills up faster.
Somehow the community needs to choose one of these paths.
My 2 cents=20
Marla
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick [mailto:nanog@haller.ws]=20
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:23 AM
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
On 2013-09-26 08:52, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
Yeah, but who doesn't run CIDR now?
Get everyone in the IPv6 pool now; we'll inevitably add hacks later....
