[167216] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Dickson)
Wed Dec 4 15:43:48 2013
In-Reply-To: <55AAEAC4-38A6-4A81-BA3B-EEC84646EA45@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:43:33 -0500
From: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2013, at 10:21 , Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Second of all, what would make much more sense in your scenario is
> to aggregate at one or two of those levels. I'd expect probably the POP
> and the Border device levels most likely, so what you're really looking
> at is 5000*100 = 500,000 /48s per border. To make this even, we'll
> round that up to 524,288 (2^19) and actually to make life easy, let's
> take that to a nibble boundary (2^20) 1,048,576, which gives us a
> /28 per Border Device.
>
>
>
Except that we have a hard limit of 1M total, which after a few 100K from
the
global routing tables (IPv4+IPv6), this 500,000 looks pretty dicey.
>
> > And root of the problem was brought into existence by the insistence that
> > every network (LAN) must be a /64.
>
> Not really. The original plan was for everything to be 64 bits, so by
> adding
> another 64 bits and making every network a /64, we're actually better off
> than we would have been if we'd just gone to 64 bit addresses in toto.
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
> Owen
>
> Understand, I am not saying anyone got it wrong, but rather, that there is
a risk associated
with continuing forever to use a /64 fixed LAN size. Yes, we are better
than we
were, but the point I'm making is, if push comes to shove, that the /64 is
a small thing
to sacrifice (at very small incremental cost, SEND + AUTOCONF
modifications).
I can't believe I just called 2**64 small.
Brian
