don at calis.blacksun.org
Thu May 31 17:38:56 UTC 2007
> 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
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
> 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.
More information about the NANOG