ISP customer assignments

Tue Oct 6 00:25:57 UTC 2009

On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Robert.E.VanOrmer at frb.gov wrote:
>>
>>> The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
>>> any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4.  Consider
>>
>> A lesson learned is that thinking about address allocation is something
>> you do not want to spend too many precious seconds of your life on.
>> That's one reason why the space was designed to be so big.  Being
>> penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't really save you much in the IPv6
>> address space.
>
> .. address aggregation?
> .. convergence time?
>
> I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
> a few ISP's deaggregated view of their "local" internal networks versus
> a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
> worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it "better".

There's a good reason for that: ipv6 isn't intended to do anything
about disaggregation. Which as you rightly point out is a problem in
ipv4 too. IIRC, there was a contingent who thought that address space
and aggregation needed to be considered as a single problem. They
lost the argument and hence ipv6 as it is today and the previously
unsolved aggregation problem... still unsolved.

Mike