[182035] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 9 16:21:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B401C7097901@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:20:02 -0700
To: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
And I=E2=80=99m saying you=E2=80=99re ignoring an important part of =
reality.
Whatever ISPs default to deploying now will become the standard to which =
application developers develop.
Changing the ISP later is easy.
Changing the applications is hard.
Let=E2=80=99s not bake unnecessary limitations into applications by =
assuming that tomorrow=E2=80=99s networks in homes will necessarily be =
as simple as today=E2=80=99s.
Owen
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 13:07 , Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> In short, I'm saying that you should set your default so it is easily =
changed on the fly and then it won't matter if you are wrong.
>=20
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>=20
>=20
>> In short, much of what you say below has been discussed before and =
with the general conclusion =E2=80=9Cgeography !=3D topology and no, =
geographic allocation would not improve summarization=E2=80=9D.
>>=20
>> I=E2=80=99m not saying that assignments need to be static, but I am =
saying that we need to put the default size somewhere that doesn=E2=80=99t=
inhibit future development and close off options at the application =
level.
>>=20
>> That=E2=80=99s why I=E2=80=99m arguing for a default /48.
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
>=20
