[178242] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Sat Feb 21 14:09:01 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2d2555lhb.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 14:06:37 -0500
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> but then we considered that v6 allocations seem to be /32s, and the
> longest propagating route seems to be /48, leaving 16 bits with which
> the deaggregators can play. while in v4 it was /24s out of a /19 or
> /20, four or five bits.
>
> this does not bode well.
Howdy,
I took a look at what it might take to keep TE-based disaggregation
under control back in 2009. This is what I came up with:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-June/014351.html
Needless to say, the sparse allocation expandable netmask strategy
we're using instead doesn't have many levers we can grab for control.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
