[183732] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=)
Sat Sep 12 11:06:55 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:06:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7B11BBC4-8B7B-49FD-B03C-0ACFCAB10263@delong.com> (Owen DeLong's
message of "Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:15:21 -0700")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> writes:
> Sure, but this is a useless savings that comes at the cost of awkward tra=
ceroute output
> that will initially confuse your new employees and consistently confuse y=
our customers.
Like MPLS or asymmetric routing...
Noone wants unnecessarily confused employees or customers, but I don't
think confusing traceroute output comes very high on the network design
criteria list these days :)
Whether the savings are useless depends on how you count the cost.
Address space savings are of course pointless, but managing address
allocations does have a cost. It doesn't have to be high, but it is a
cost you have to consider.
FWIW, we decided to go with an IA_NA based WAN GUA for CPE management
purposes - we needed a management address and didn't want to steal from
the customers IA_PD prefix.
Bj=C3=B8rn
