minimum IPv6 announcement size

Thu Sep 26 16:16:34 UTC 2013

There are many ways to mediate this.  No matter what one is chosen a balance between market, Networks and policy will need to be met.  And in the end Networks will do what is best for their network.  However if there is a norm of some kind, then at least there will be a target to hover around.

Market & Networks- 
Pro- Entities managing the health of their network would be less willing to route what would result in overload.
Con- The more financially healthy Entities can afford faster turn over and burn to new routers and circuit upgrades. The upper hand of growth goes to them since overload wouldn't be as much as an internal issue as it would be to other smaller networks.  The global scheme gets lost in the eye of the mighty dollar.  This is not anything new market pattern wise but Larger/Financially healthy entities would survive better than any smaller provider.

Policy
Pro- there would be a set standard to target
Con- policy is managed by the community and not always supporting every business model equally.  Plus policy can become a moving target as we have witnessed with IPv4.

	List Publishing-Policy
	Pro- qualified ASN's are approved a range of subnet size of route advertisements and any "too specific/smaller" advertisements are 	ignored if not on the list.
	Con- this is policy. No one tells a network what to do.  

	Set Boundary policy 
	Pro- something exists as a target to help manage the issue
	Con- policy is very likely to become a moving target. No one tells a network what to do. 

Keep Head in Sand
Pro- Happy
Con- Calamity...but when? Or will there be a new option...the next best thing.  Hope in one hand and @#$$ in the other.  One usually fills up faster.

Somehow the community needs to choose one of these paths.

My 2 cents 
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick [mailto:nanog at haller.ws] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:23 AM
To: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size

On 2013-09-26 08:52, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>  sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...

Yeah, but who doesn't run CIDR now?

Get everyone in the IPv6 pool now; we'll inevitably add hacks later....