ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Fri Apr 9 19:32:34 CDT 2010


On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote:
> +Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be
> deployed.  For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point
> network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general.  There's also no
> tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 right now, and the tangible danger
> that your v6 deployment will just have to be redone because there's some
> flaw in the current v6  protocol or best practices that will be uncovered.

This lack of consensus seems to most be associated with people who
haven't deployed. those of us who have in some cases a decade ago, don't
wonder very much...

You can deploy point-to-points as /112s or /64s. if you do anything that
isn't aligned on a byte boundary the brains will leak out of the ears of
your engineers. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. any subnet
that has more than 2 devices on it is a /64 do anything else and you'll
shoot yourself or someone else in the foot and probably sooner rather
than later.

> +Bonus Doubt: Because we've been told that "IPv4 will be dead in 2
> years" for the last 20 years, and that "IPv6 will be deployed and a way
> of life in 2 years" for the past 10, nobody really believes it anymore. 
> There's been an ongoing chant of "wolf" for so long, many people won't
> believe it until things are much, much worse.

I bet you're really good at predicting the stock market as well. you can
be right and still go bankrupt. It is posisble to mistake postive but
nearly random outcomes for skill or insight.

I don't have to be right about needing an ipv6 deployment plan or even
believe that ipv6 is deployable in it's present form (I happen to
believe that, buts it's beside the point), because I need a business
continuity plan for what happens around ipv4 exhaustion, I may have more
than one, but I have a fiduciary duty to my company to not fly this
particular plane into avoidable terrain.

> -Dave
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list