Hi Brian, On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:38:03 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark, > > On 2007-10-22 02:24, Mark Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:22:08 +0200 > > Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just noticed > >> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Dickson-lightning.pdf > >> and found some serious flaws and most likely misunderstandings in the > >> way that some things are presented in there. It was already publicly > >> presented at the NANOG meeting, so lets discuss ;) > >> > >> <insert humble mode disclaimer etc /> > >> > > > > Slide 2: > > > > "We can’t fault the IETF - > > they aren’t operators" > > > > Some of us are. > > I'd add that the more operators that care to participate in the > IETF, the better it will be for everybody. > > I don't happen to agree with Brian Dickson's proposed change, > but I think it's important to discuss why he thinks it's > necessary from an operational viewpoint to permit such sparse > allocation of prefix bits. > Slide 11 would seem to be the root false assumption. Brian is assuming that ISPs would reserve a /44 for each and every customer (i.e. including residential) to allow for future expansion beyond a /48. He's then saying the remaining 12 bits from a registry /32 assignment is too small, which it probably would be, for the reasons he outlines, and then is looking to get some bits from somewhere else. Of course, once you don't reserve a /44 for each customer, because a /48 is plenty for nearly everybody, the 12 bits turn into 16, making Brian's concerns far less concerning, and probably no concern at all. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
