IPv6 Advertisements

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 
> 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