nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:19:54 +1300
On 5/02/2009, at 3:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
TJ wrote:No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the purists out there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links, etc.).If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world (probably more) then, if every ISP followed best practise for IPv6 address allocation, (sparse, bits for infrastructure, whatever etc) then what percentage of the space do we have left if we hand out /56 or /48s?). Taking into account the space already carved off for link local, private addressing, US Military etc.Has anyone done some analysis of what this might look like? Especially with growth etc.
My addressing plan works like this: ISP gets /32, 2001:db8::/32 - 2001:db8:0::/48 = ISP use -- 2001:db8:0:0::/64 = infrastructure --- 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:0::/112 = loopbacks ( 65536 )--- 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0::/112 through 2001:db8::ffff:ffff:ffff:0/112 = / 112 link nets between ISP routers ( 281474976710656 ) -- 2001:db8:0::/64 through 2001:db8:0:ffff::/64 = ISP networks, ie. servers, etc.
- 2001:db8:1::/64 through 2001:db8:ffff:ffff::/64 = customer networks.Assuming the above, we have 65535 /48s available to customers, or 16,711,680 /56s.
The "ISP use" /48 burns 256 /56s, or potential customers. So, like burning a /24 for the entire ISP operation.
So, if you have more than 65K business customers, get more than a /32.If you have more than 16M residential or small business customers, get more than /32.
The above plan puts the addresses you type lots (loopbacks, link nets) on the shortest addresses you have - you can use the zero compression :: thing. These are also the addresses that cause the most trouble if fat fingered, so shorter addresses leave less room for error. In addition, the entire first /64 (loopbacks, link nets) should never really receive packets from outside the network. Drop in an ACL.
Modification to the above plan is to use /64s for link nets between ISP routers, if you are worried about compatibility issues. You now have a trade off between 65k ISP server networks, and 65k link nets. Let's say 32k for each.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 07)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space(IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Simon Lyall (Feb 05)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Michael K. Smith - Adhost (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Nathan Ward (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Måns Nilsson (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW) Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joel Jaeggli (Feb 08)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Trey Darley (Feb 10)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Skeeve Stevens (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Paul Timmins (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Zaid Ali (Feb 03)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Huff (Feb 03)