North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

IPv6 daydreams

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 19:50:55 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=6SXHFdIueQKCEqERaNgG2e66cuIr9MoySlw5VSER6wtSq6PyLjwLi4ItI/vNL9nXvPdGNSqWHg+bnOfxvUNHAJXOuyMiCCiSu9rKtjaSmIa7awbNGiPob3p54YWWVkSjFPF85rdLUfPqUp/XZhRnPBQVm18kPYNjpRBE/HPR2RU= ;

--- Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:

> so, if we had a free hand and ignored the dogmas,
> what would we
> change about the v6 architecture to make it really
> deployable
> and scalable and have compatibility with and a
> transition path
> from v4 without massive kludging, complexity, and
> long term
> cost?

Okay, I'll bite - If I were king, here's what I'd want
to see:

I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give
every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4
universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any
customer can make do with a single IPv4-size universe,
and make the default end-customer allocation a /96. 
ISPs could still get gigantic prefixes (like a /23 or
something), to make sure that an ISP would never need
more than one prefix.

I'd move us to the 1-prefix-per-ASN approach as much
as possible - reserve a single /16 for multihoming
end-sites, and let that be a swamp.  There are under
32K multihomed ASNs in use now, and while demand is
growing, if we can keep organizations to one prefix
each, the routing table stays pretty darn small.

Designate a /96 as "private" space for use on devices
which don't connect to the Internetv6.

To qualify for an "ISP" allocation, an entity would
have to agree to route the swamp space, and not route
the "private" space.

And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony...

-David Barak-
-Fully RFC 1925 Compliant-

Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!