[178217] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nikolay Shopik)
Fri Feb 20 05:14:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 13:13:57 +0300
From: Nikolay Shopik <shopik@inblock.ru>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502201032190.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 20/02/15 12:42, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I don't like where this is headed. There are millions of entities that
> are justifiable to announce a /48 into DFZ. Do we want this to happen?
rfc6115 have good overview and recommendation. IPv6 clearly need
separation of identification of endpoints and routing information to
that endpoint.
We already have broadband operators who fully deagg their IPv4 space.
And just one ISP IPv6 with /32 deagg will take 65536 routes.
