RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner () cluebyfour org]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> >
> > > Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
> > > like wasting addresses :)
> >
> > That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
> >
> > For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
> > generally have a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning:
> > for a customer that only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not
> > feasible to create a separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of
> > addresses. But invariably, these customers on shared subnets grow, so
> > over time the logical subnet gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks
> > that are shared by a relatively large number of customers, and because
> > of resistance to renumbering, it's impossible to fix this later on.
>
> I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.  My
> earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
> point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.  In that
> case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or at the
> maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.

Actually, in most cases - you would assign customers more than a /64.
*Hopefully* a /56 as the smallest ... ~/48 for enterprises ... 


> jms

/TJ