v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
mmc at internode.com.au
Sun Feb 8 01:56:28 UTC 2009
Bill Stewart wrote:
> That's not because it's doing dynamic address assignment - it's
> because you're only advertising the aggregate route from the
> BRAS/DSLAM/etc., and you can just as well do the same thing if you're
> using static addresses.
Customers can land on one of a fleet of large BRAS across multiple POPs
in a geographic region so that a failure of one piece of equipment or
POP doesn't cause an outage. If I want to run a hint of redundancy
then I need to propogate statics out of the POP itself. There are
corners that can be cut but none seem to fit into the kind of redundancy
we like. Unlike a most BGP routes DSL circuits tend to go up and down
a lot, this adds to convergence time and CPU load on the router.
My issue is not basic network design skills. My issue is that customers
have indicated that they feel statics are a given for IPv6 and this
would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands of statics to
hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a minority to all).
Even injecting statics into iBGP rather than an IGP I feel would add
considerably to the load routers face and give a big hit in the event of
failure. (We already have a class of customer with statically assigned
addresses or ranges).
The indication so far seems to be that on this list at least people
don't see IPv6 statics for all as the general option. This gives me a
bit more hope.
Matthew Moyle-Croft - Internode/Agile - Networks
Level 4, 150 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: mmc at internode.com.au Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
More information about the NANOG