[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12
owen at delong.com
Sun Oct 10 19:51:11 EDT 2010
On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>>> What about traffic engineering? It would be a lot nicer if return trip to my users could deterministically stay within region.
>> Permit me to rephrase... There is nothing that in my mind would justify the community
>> granting more than one 6rd prefix to an ISP, given the incredible waste inherent in the
>> first one. I would advocate that, instead, if you want to do TE with your 6rd, you should,
>> as an ISP, either disaggregate your 6rd prefix accordingly, or, you should move towards
>> a more native solution where you could get appropriate native allocations with much
>> less wastage.
> We agree. My point was that 6rd can open the door to even larger than /16 allocations. And all because of the excellent idea to store protocol dataset inside of ipv6 128 bits of register^W address space. TE bits would come on top of that.
Yes... If we do anything to facilitate 6rd, it is critical to treat whatever we do as a necessary
evil done for expediency in a time of urgency and not allow it to become any more entrenched
than absolutely necessary.
More information about the ARIN-PPML