North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 Addressing Plans
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:56:19 -0000 <[email protected]> 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"