nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems
From: Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0500
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net> wrote:
Joe Loiacono wrote:Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big.Let's also not forget, that many organizations went from multiple allocations to a single allocation. If we all filter anything longer than /32, we'll rearrange the flow of traffic that many over the years have altered through longer prefixes. Even I suspect I may occasionally have to let a /40 out now and then to alter it's traffic from the rest of the aggregate. Traffic comes to you as it wants to come to you. The only pseudo remedy that currently exists is to move some prefixes over to a different path. If you only have a /32, that'll be a bit hard. This, more than anything, is what will effect this list and the people on it where IPv6 is concerned. Filtering longer than /33, 35, 40? Dare we go to /48 and treat them as the new /24? I know for myself, traffic manipulation can't begin until /40 (unless I split them further apart).
Given that ARIN at least is assigning end-user /48s out of 2620::/23 it would be useful to accept these announcements. If not end-user PI is dead in the water. Some providers might like that. End-users probably won't. Tim:>
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Nathan Ward (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] David W. Hankins (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Joe Abley (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] David W. Hankins (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Paul Vixie (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Joe Loiacono (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Jack Bates (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Stephen Kratzer (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Tim Durack (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Joe Loiacono (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Tim Durack (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 06)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems TJ (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Jack Bates (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems Matthew Kaufman (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] James R. Cutler (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] David W. Hankins (Feb 05)