[86421] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: classful routes redux
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Nov 3 17:40:30 2005
In-Reply-To: <20051103213420.GD22069@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:39:55 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Nov 3, 2005, at 4:34 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> saving the poor routing table is a laudable and worthwhile goal,
> but dumping the excess into the edges, "just cause its easy" strikes
> me as lame. a routing table slot is a slot is a slot. It holds
> a /96 as well as a /32 as well as a /112. If we are going to ditch
> "microassignments" (and boy is that term an oxymoron) then we should
> also dump "one-size-fits-all" and really and truely give folks what
> they need. RIRs have -never- assured the routablity of delegations.
Disagree.
The one saving grace I can see of v6 is that there is enough space to
give everyone the space they need in a single allocation.
It's not a waste if it keeps people from needing a second block.
Maybe not everyone needs a /32, but let's not get stingy with
plentiful resources (IP space in v6) and risk using too much of a not-
so-plentiful resource (routing table slot).
--
TTFN,
patrick
