IPv6 end user addressing
owen at delong.com
Thu Aug 11 01:51:37 UTC 2011
> I don't have to use my imagination to think of ways that additional
> bits on the network address side would have been advantageous -- all I
> need is my memory. In the 90s, it was suggested that a growing number
> of dual-homed networks cluttering the DFZ could be handled more
> efficiently by setting aside certain address space for customers who
> dual-homed to pairs of the largest ISPs. The customer routes would
> then not need to be carried by anyone except those two ISPs, who are
> earning money from the customer. This never happened for a variety of
> good reasons, but most of the technical reasons would have gone away
> with the adoption of IPv6, as it was envisioned in the mid-90s.
I think that can still be very realistically achieved within the existing available
> There seems to be a lot of imagination being used for SOHO networks,
> and none on the ISP side. What a shame that is.
> Owen, I do agree with the point you made off-list, that if huge
> mistakes are made now and the IPv6 address space is consumed more
> rapidly than the community is comfortable with, there should be plenty
> of opportunity to fix that down the road.
Precisely, so, let's risk a small chance of a mistake here now so that we don't
cut off innovation so early.
More information about the NANOG