[177721] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Feb 1 13:19:55 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGUmY7a4_0K1jLvNytBRmCXT0hXiV_WAzJtonZtk_5uhwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 10:17:16 -0800
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> Worse, IPv6's promises are falling one by one. You saw an example in
> this thread: Eric wants to break up his announcements for traffic
> engineering purposes because, as it turns out, one announcement per
> ISP isn't actually enough, Registry practices aren't the primary
> drivers behind routing disaggregation. That was a bad assumption baked
> in to IPv6's addressing strategy.
Traffic engineering still won=92t be anywhere near as bad as the current =
IPv4 routing table, so no, that doesn=92t indicate a failure in the =
promise of IPv6.
Traffic engineering (and other factors) will probably prevent the ideal =
of one prefix advertised per ASN, but IPv6 will still likely top out =
somewhere around 4 or 5 on average vs. the current IPv4 average which is =
north of 10 last time I looked. That=92s still a pretty substantial win.
Further, technology in routers continues to advance and we are starting =
to see routers capable of holding very large routing tables. (So far, =
necessary to cope with the abomination of keeping IPv4 on life support). =
Once IPv4 can be deprecated, even just in the backbone, it=92s a huge =
win in terms of routing slots available.
Further, your statement about registry practices doesn=92t hold water. =
It wasn=92t a bad assumption, it was the facts on the ground as they =
existed for IPv4 at the time. In the 20 years since, the world has =
changed. Registry practices aren=92t a factor in IPv6, but they are, in =
fact, still a factor (though somewhat less than they used to be) in =
IPv4.
> Years ago I cracked a joke about IPv6: =
http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html =
<http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html>
I didn=92t realize you thought it was a joke. I thought it was just more =
of your misguided railing against IPv6 because you love NAT so much for =
reasons passing understanding.
> These days I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Given your past statements and apparent position along with the fact =
that despite various efforts, IPv6 deployment continues to accelerate, =
I=92m guessing cry, but that=92s certainly your decision.
Owen
