[ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Mar 13 21:49:13 EST 2006
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 04:34:30PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> 2) We need to work within the constraints of the existing BGP
> >>> protocol for the foreseeable future.
> >> thanks for that.
>
> and thanks for that to you too, bill
>
> >>> 3) As long as IPv4 is run in parallel, the number of subnets will
> >>> be the same because it would be too hard to explain to ops how it
> >>> works otherwise.
> >> this seems to assume that the v6 net is essentially congruent with
> >> the v4 network. perhaps this assumption is worthy of exploration.
> > (which you express gratitude for) then one might rightly presume that
> > unless any given ISP is going to replicate the CAPX to buy independent
> > gear for building a v6 net that ignores any synergy w/ their v4 net
> > and their various peering buddies seems to be a stretch. e.g. the
> > "edge" of bills bait & sushi will be roughly congruent for the v4 and
> > v6 nets due to cost of gear.
>
you did notice the modifier... "roughly"??
my presumption is @/near the AS boundaries.
> "Congruent: adj ... Coinciding exactly when superimposed"
>
> this assumes v6 and v4 are deployed with the identical footprint.
> i doubt they will come close to that. especially given v4 nats
> and v6 nats, e.g., shim6.
>
> randy
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list