[96828] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (matthew zeier)
Sat May 26 22:36:30 2007
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 19:35:34 -0700
From: matthew zeier <mrz@velvet.org>
To: "Krichbaum, Eric" <Eric.Krichbaum@admin.citynet.net>
Cc: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <67D3C78600A2544C8DCDA930DD281EA9E1EE1A@EXWVEVS.admin.citynet.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Krichbaum, Eric wrote:
> Agreed. The statement from ARIN is recent and impacts us all. We've
> got our core v6 routing in place, but operationally, that's really the
> easy part. Modifying the tools such as billing, monitoring, management,
> tracking, and auditting are the slow link in the chain. The space is
> dwindling but that doesn't seem to be putting the transition pressure on
> if the services aren't there to use v6. Until more transit providers
> support it, the reasoning for smaller provider to transition is limited.
And give that most end user allocations are /64s, could bind really handle a
18,446,744,073,700,000,000 line zone file? :)
