RE: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.

["George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Ward [mailto:nanog () daork net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:34 PM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
>
> The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story.
 ...
> You will find that most networks filtering /48s allow them from the
> pool with only /48s in it.

That makes perfect sense. 
 
> If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if not
> then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do
> filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect.

I can't in good conscience justify a /32.  That is just too much space.
I believe I can, however, justify a separate /48 in Europe and APAC with
my various offices and data centers in that region coming from the /48
for that region.

> Insert routing table explosion religious war here, with snipes from
> people saying that we need a new routing system, etc. etc.

Eh, it isn't so bad.  I could think of some ways things could have been
better (e.g. providers use a 32bit ASN as the prefix with a few "magic"
destination prefixes for multicast, anycast, futurecast and multihomed
end users use a 16-bit regional prefix with a 16-bit ASN as a 32-bit
prefix) but we are too far down the road to complain too much about that
sort of stuff.

> So with that in mind, do your concerns from your original post still
> make sense?

Thanks, Nathan, and let's say that I am somewhat less apprehensive than
I was.

George