Re: IPv6 Addressing Plans

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:56:19 -0000
<michael.dillon () bt com> wrote:

> > >     -Do not assign from PoP aggregates
> >
> > What do you mean with the above? If I understand the line 
> > correctly, then I disagree with it.
>
> I don't mean anything by that, I just quoted it from the
> wiki page. If you disgree then you should add something
> to the page.

Probably even better, raise the point on the V6OPS working group mailing
list, so that it can be included in the "IPv6 Unicast Address
Assignment Considerations" Internet Draft/future RFC. Addressing
options, and the pros and cons of them are what the draft is about.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-07.txt

> I have a vague memory that this advice was
> given in a NANOG presentation on IPv6 but it would not
> surprise me if it was a case where one size does not fit all.
>
> PoP aggregates sounds like a good idea to me, but given the
> need to meet a certain HD ratio in order to get a larger
> RIR allocation, it might be risky for an ISP to do that.
> This is one area where the operator environment differs
> from the enterprise.
>
> --Michael Dillon

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

        "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
         alert."
                                   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"