[ppml] Various IPv6 issues

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Fri Aug 24 08:06:34 EDT 2007

Allow me to disagree with ALL of your points:

On 24-aug-2007, at 5:09, mack wrote:

> I agree with a /56 for 'residential' use

See my earlier comments on /56 vs /60.

> 2) IPv6 renumbering happens.  We need a policy that says a network
> with X nodes is eligible for a /48 and with Y nodes is eligible for  
> a /32.

Nodes are irrelevant. You can put every IP-capable device ever built  
in a /64.

> 3) IPv6 NAT is going to happen.  It is going to be one to one  
> rather than
> one to many which prevents breaking most protocols.

The protocols still break and unlike with IPv4, implementations don't  
contain any workarounds so good luck with that.

> 4) ARIN seems to be allocating on /29 boundaries to allow expansion  
> while maintaining aggregation.
> This is a good thing.  Obviously gaps can be filled in later if  
> needed.

It's a bad thing, becaue experience shows that filling in the gaps  
doesn't lead to good aggregation. This only serves to make  
utilization of address space sparser, making data structures in  
routing tables less efficient and filtering harder.

> 5) Geographically dispersed organizations will need more than a  
> single /32 if a /32 is the
> smallest announcement and we do not wish to de-aggregate.  Traffic  
> engineering is also
> going to require either A) a new routing protocol, B) changes to  
> BGP, C) deaggregation
> or D) multiple /32s.

Sure, why should multi-geography organizations pay for a private  
network if they can simply deaggregate and burden the entire world  
with the cost of bigger routers?

Don't come crying to the IETF if bad policy breaks the internet.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list