[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
On 2/10/11 5:31 AM, Cutler James R wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 12:15 AM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:42:14 -0500, Nathan Eisenberg
>> <nathan at atlasnetworks.us> wrote:
>>> What do you mean, lit up? You mean they're not in the routing
>>> tables that you get from your carriers? I'd argue that's no
>>> indication of whether they're in use or not.
>> That's pretty much the definition of "in use". If they don't
>> appear in the global routing table, then they aren't being used. I
>> cannot send traffic to them; they cannot send traffic to me.
>> In my recent probe of route servers, I found 22 legacy /8's that
>> were partly or completely unused. I'm a little surprised
>> ARIN/ICANN thinks it's a waste of time to even try to reclaim
> This dead horse keep coming back for another beating. The purpose of
> a global registry of numbers is to provide a common source for unique
> numbers. The definition of "in use" by internet registries does not
> require appearance in your routing tables or even in the route
> servers. Not only that, the "users" may not even want or need to
> exchange traffic with you.
> As a survivor of many network consolidations due to corporate
> acquisitions, I have many scars from trying to get separate RFC 1918
> islands to interwork properly. That is the reason that even so-called
> private networks need unique IP addressing.
more to the point, every partner / customer integration exercise that
involves backend networks has rfc 1918 somewhere, e.g. it's not justd
M&A and the pain doesn't go away. intersecticing address assignments for
hundreds and potentiatly thousands of hosts when it comes to public
cloud integration are a signficant drag on opertations, involve not just
nat but additional split horizons and so fourth...
This is not just speculation, this stuff happens in our environment
> And now, since IPv6 is actually being deployed and used, there is
> absolutely no economic incentive to continue to fight the "IPv4
> addresses not in my routing table are not 'in use'" battle any more.
> It is a waste of time and money.
> James R. Cutler james.cutler at consultant.com