nanog mailing list archives
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
From: Dan White <dwhite () olp net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:24:30 -0500
On 18/10/10 19:24 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:sthaug () nethelp no writes:I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument. We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change this.If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we would use about .000025 of the total available IPv6 address space.I'm confused. The "hand out /48s everywhere" crowd keeps saying that we need to do that because we haven't yet anticipated everything that end users might want to do with a /48 on their CPE. On the wider issue of "we don't yet understand everything that can be done with the space" I think we're in agreement. However my conclusion is that "therefore we should be careful to preserve the maximum flexibility possible."After we have some operational experience with IPv6 we will be in a position to make better decisions; but we have to GET operational experience first. Grousing about lack of adherence to holy writ in that deployment doesn't help anybody.
I agree with you, but have come to a different conclusion. I would fall under the /48s crowd, except that I'm not really interested in an attempt to standardize /48 deployments. But I still feel strongly that a /48 assignment model for residential customers is right for our environment. With v4 assignments, we have a different philosophy. When we received our v4 assignments from ARIN, is was natural for us to take a conservative approach when handing out addresses... by default we assign one dynamic address to each customer and provide one or more static addresses for a nominal fee to customers, not because we want to make money from it, but because we want to be good stewards of those addresses. That's our 'fail safe' approach to v4 distribution (1 per customer). With v6, our 'fail safe' approach, without strong operational experience, is to assign larger blocks rather than smaller. A cycle in our staff in 5 or 10 years is likely to appreciate that decision, and we can't really justify a /56-rather-than-/48 decision based on address constraints. We really do have the addresses to support /48 deployments for the foreseeable future, and would expect future staff to request more addresses when they're needed. -- Dan White
Current thread:
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption, (continued)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Lee (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Mark Andrews (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Doug Barton (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Dan White (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Doug Barton (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption George Bonser (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Eugen Leitl (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption George Bonser (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Ben Butler (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Ben Butler (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)