[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