|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6 Advertisements
First of all, there's disagreement about the definition of "site", and some folks hold the opinion that means physical location. Thus, if you have 100 sites, those folks would claim you have justified 100 /48s (or one /41). Other folks, like me, disagree with that, but there are orgs out there that have tens of thousands of locations with a need for multiple subnets per location, and that could justify more than a /48 as well via pure subnet counts.Companies with tens of thousands of sites, each needing multiple subnets is not the norm for end user allocations. And again- would the administrative overhead of a new /40 netblock really outweigh the benefits to our routing tables? I'm asking not stating... ARIN's goal in v6 is to try to issue blocks so that aggregation is _possible_, by reserving a larger block to allow growth, but ARIN can't prevent intentional (or accidental) deaggregation,But ARIN has the power to give the community the tools it needs to force aggregation (if the community decides they want)- even if it isn't ARIN's own policy. and there's too many folks who want to deaggregate for TE purposes to pass a policy officially condemning it.I understand limited deaggregation for TE purposes- but that doesn't mean you have to let people go nuts. 1 or two bits is one thing- 8 (or more) is another animal all together. I'd agree in principle, but all it takes is a brief look at the CIDR report and you'll see that nobody does anything in response to far more flagrant examples in v4.So because v4 is screwed up we should let v6 get just as bad? The time to fix these sorts of issues is now- before it's really live, rather than later. -Don
|