Re: IPv6 Addressing Plans

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007 1:59 PM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org> 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.
>
> Jeroen,
>
> If I remember right, this came from a discussion on the ARIN PPML
> list. I don't clearly remember the discussion, so my apologies in
> advance if I get some of it wrong.
>
> During discussion and analysis, allocation of addresses by POP was
> found to be incompatible with a couple goals deemed more important.
> The general consensus was that you should establish areas consisting
> of multiple POPs and aggregate by area instead.

Area/PoP, that is a just a way to describe a route into a certain
direction. I guess the wording should be changed to resolve the issue I
have with it, eg "try to aggregate per area/PoP where possible to keep
IGP routes low"


> However, ARIN is not
> in the business of recommending routing best practices so the
> recommendation was narrowed to just "don't aggregate by POP" meaning
> "don't fine-tune your aggregation all the way down to the POP level;
> stop somewhere above it."

Then put that in there, sounds more logical than the "Don't aggregate"
line that is in there now.

As for the rest of your mail, I would suggest putting it in the Wiki as
an explanation and referencing it from the above point as it clarifies a
number of things that people will not have to time to go lookup in the
mailinglists.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature