v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
Mark_Andrews at isc.org
Thu Feb 5 00:57:18 UTC 2009
In message <498A3514.1050608 at internode.com.au>, Matthew Moyle-Croft writes:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
> > remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
> > bet when someone said "four-point-two BILLION addresses", someone else
> > said "no [email protected]#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many...."
> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6). Setting
> the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own
> statically is insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables
> more than is rational. (Think of the processing overhead of all the
> DSL/Cable customers going up and down). This is going to be far more of
> an issue and drive network design than a minor blow out in the v6
> routing table.
Assign the prefixes using PD and use aggregate routes out side of the pop.
IPv6 nodes are designed to be renumbered. Use the technology. Stop thinking
IPv4 and start thinking IPv6. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with bigger addresses.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews at isc.org
More information about the NANOG