On 10/05/2009 05:09 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, robert.e.vanor...@frb.gov wrote:
The address space is daunting in scale as you have noted, but I don't see
any lessons learned in address allocation between IPv6 and IPv4. Consider
A lesson learned is that thinking about address allocation is something
you do not want to spend too many precious seconds of your life on.
That's one reason why the space was designed to be so big. Being
penny-wise and pound-foolish doesn't really save you much in the IPv6
address space.
.. address aggregation?
.. convergence time?
I'm sorry, but seeing a good fraction of my local IX simply containing
a few ISP's deaggregated view of their "local" internal networks versus
a sensible allocation policy makes me cry. IPv6 may just make this
worse. IPv6 certainly won't make it "better".
There's a good reason for that: ipv6 isn't intended to do anything
about disaggregation. Which as you rightly point out is a problem in
ipv4 too. IIRC, there was a contingent who thought that address space
and aggregation needed to be considered as a single problem. They
lost the argument and hence ipv6 as it is today and the previously
unsolved aggregation problem... still unsolved.
Mike
