IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?

Brian Johnson bjohnson at drtel.com
Thu Dec 1 08:10:02 CST 2011


Nathan,

I respect your positions,  but you presume too much. I'm in no way an evangelist, but I agree with most of the points made by those you categorize as such. I'll reply specifically in-line.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nathan Eisenberg [mailto:nathan at atlasnetworks.us]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:05 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: RE: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS
>networks?
>
<SNIP>
>
>Or you might do what a lot of us have done: get sick of arguing with the
>evangelists about how /64's don't make sense for everyone in every scenario.
>Get sick of trying to argue that every home's CPE doesn't need a /48
>delegated to it so that it can automatically subdelegate longer networks to
>devices which will in turn subdelegate even longer prefixes to devices which
>"something that hasn't been invented yet will use, and if you don't set it up
>this way, history will prove that you're an unimaginative fool".  Get sick of
>hearing "It's a huge address space, so don't worry about being conservative -
>sitting 'on the shelf' or sitting unused in a network are the same thing" (I guess
>we'll migrate to an even bigger address space if we someday have other
>stellar bodies in our local star system to send packets to, despite the average
>home network utilizing far, far less than .00[...]01% of their address space... -
>add a lot more 0's if the /48 guys win out...)

It sounds like you are still in the IPv4 paradigm. I agree with your statements, but not your tone or implications. I think you misread people who have immense knowledge on the subject matter and care deeply with people who are grinding an axe for political or emotional purposes. If someone argued with you on the subtleties of gravity and doesn't accept the basic premise of gravity, you would likely respond similarly.

>
>This new IPv6 world is full of lazy evangelists, who are so excited about same-
>sized subnets, stateless address configuration and globally unique and
>routable addresses for purposes that no one can quite imagine yet, that they
>cannot engage in a logical and rational discussion with the rest of us.  Instead,
>we go back and forth over the same concerns, until the patience of the list has
>been utterly worn out - at which point, these individuals always throw their
>hands in the air, and exclaim: "You're wrong, and your customers will tell you
>that with their feet", and presume that they have then proven you wrong.

I'm rubber your glue.... Never mind.  The things you are minimalizing are some of the design specifications of the protocol. It's like arguing about the fact that IPv4 has certain headers and they are dumb. GET OVER IT!

And no one will ever prove you wrong. It's that everyone else will do one thing and you will do something else. Live with your decision.

This debate result can be seen in situations where people are too far apart at the start. This may be due to the paradigm shift to IPv6 from IPv4.

>
>As has been pointed out, there is a lot of human nature at work here: these
>individuals have made low-level emotional investments in their arguments,
>and divided the IPv6-think world into two categories: Us (right), and Not Us
>(wrong).  When someone does this, it can take a significant amount of
>psychology to get the conversation to a rational place, and unless you have a
>real need to see eye to eye with them, it's often easier to move on.  In any
>case, do the research and testing, and make sure that at least your own
>deployments have rational addressing policies (whatever you determine that
>might be).

I wish you hadn't gone into the psychological babble here. You are right about this though. Do what you think is best for you. Please do not denigrate others for not coming to the same conclusions as you.

When you ask for an opinion on this type of medium, about a controversial topic, you will get this type of thread. Live it.... Love it!

- Brian Johnson



More information about the NANOG mailing list