[96974] in North American Network Operators' Group
IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald Stahl)
Tue May 29 21:06:06 2007
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:53:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <C2826BFC.19C1C2%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being
> didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the
> AAAA.
So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive
experience with their transitions.
The biggest complaints so far have come from end users who want to
multihome and will be unable to do so under IPv6 due to allocation
restrictions.
End user sites seem to be of the opinion that they have enough addresses
and that IP shortages are the ISP's problem. They don't want to spend
money on upgrades only to wind up with a lesser service than they already
have- and that's a fair criticism.
Does it make sense to allow early adopters to multi-home and "punish"
those who delay by making it significantly harder? Would that help? Hurt?
Accomplish nothing?
Regarding the prefix filters-
Do /32 filters make sense given the ISP allocation of /32 or would a /34
filter (for example) make sense to allow for very limited deaggregation
(to make moves and transitions easier- or to allow better traffic
balances)- or is this just asking for problems? I'm just curious about
opinions and by no means trying to start a flame war.
-Don
