Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:51:37 -0700

I don't have to use my imagination to think of ways that additional
bits on the network address side would have been advantageous -- all I
need is my memory.  In the 90s, it was suggested that a growing number
of dual-homed networks cluttering the DFZ could be handled more
efficiently by setting aside certain address space for customers who
dual-homed to pairs of the largest ISPs.  The customer routes would
then not need to be carried by anyone except those two ISPs, who are
earning money from the customer.  This never happened for a variety of
good reasons, but most of the technical reasons would have gone away
with the adoption of IPv6, as it was envisioned in the mid-90s.

I think that can still be very realistically achieved within the existing available
address space.

There seems to be a lot of imagination being used for SOHO networks,
and none on the ISP side.  What a shame that is.

I disagree.

Owen, I do agree with the point you made off-list, that if huge
mistakes are made now and the IPv6 address space is consumed more
rapidly than the community is comfortable with, there should be plenty
of opportunity to fix that down the road.

Precisely, so, let's risk a small chance of a mistake here now so that we don't
cut off innovation so early.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]