[175125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 9 12:37:36 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1183F513-5ECB-48B9-A06B-18572D3EB73B@arbor.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 09:31:03 -0700
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend =
to doubt.
I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also =
see greater separation of networks into segments along various =
administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual =
topologies you describe will likely also have related prefix =
consequences.
Owen
On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> wrote:
>=20
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets =
simply displays a complete lack of imagination.
>=20
> On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address =
pool size will lead to much flatter, less hierarchical networks - while =
at the same time leading to most nodes being highly multi-homed into =
various virtual topologies, thereby leading to significant increases of =
addresses per node.
>=20
> A 'node' being things like molecules, nanites, window blinds, soda =
cans, etc.
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>=20
> Equo ne credite, Teucri.
>=20
> -- Laoco=F6n
