On Jan 1, 2008 8:29 AM, Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:57:17 +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 31 dec 2007, at 1:24, Mark Smith wrote:
Another idea would be to give each non-/48 customer the first /56 out of each /48.
Right, so you combine the downsides of both approaches.
It doesn't work when ARIN does it:
Well, ARIN aren't running the Internet route tables. If they were, I'd assume they'd force AS6453 to do the right thing and aggregate their address space.
11920 - cogeco who I presume (just guessing) is doing this either because they have not aggregated by mistake or have to shed load and load-balance). I don't think teleglobe (6453) is at fault here... out of curiousity how is this sort of thing supposed to be done in v6? (traffic engineering given the '1 prefix per ISP' standard mantra)
* 24.122.32.0/20 4.68.1.166 0 0 3356 6453 11290 i
Static assignments of /56 to customers make sense to me, and that's the assumption I've made when suggesting the addressing scheme I proposed. Once you go static with /56s, you may as well make it easy for both yourself and the customer to move to a /48 that encompasses the original /56 (or configure the whole /48 for them from the outset).
I think the assumption most folks make with DSL/cable is that end-users get dynamic assignments from a local (to the PE device) pool, similar to ipv4. I suppose you could do static assignments, but there's a management payment there that might not fit within the ISP's cost plan. I presume that something accepting PD would be smart enough to let the end-hosts/lans know when their top 56 bits changed... and v6 includes auto-renumbering for 'free' right? So all solved? (yes some of that is joking... or at the very least pointing out a gotcha) -Chris