nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
From: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:02:12 -0700
On 7/15/15 1:48 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:23:36 -0400, "Ricky Beam" said:What seems like a great idea today becomes tomorrow's "what the f*** were they thinking".However, this statement doesn't provide any actual guidance, as it's potentially equally applicable to the "give each end customer a /48" crew and the "Give them all a /56" crew..... Actually, not true - in fact, it's demonstrable that a residential customer can run through a /56. Just get a largish house, put up one router using CeroWRT (or, I suspect a current/recent OpenWRT) that burns through 6-7 subnet allocations), and then put a second one at the other end of the house and it burns through 6-7. The second one has to dhcp-pd request at least 3 bits for itself, which leaves the first one only 5 bits, of which *it* will burn at least 3. If you create any VLANs at all, you just burned 4 and 4 bits, and there goes that /56. And that's burned all the subnets in a /56 *just hooking up 2 plug and play routers*. There's none left for doing anything experimental/different. (And I suspect Dave Taht can provide several CeroWRT config checkboxes that will each burn another 1-3 bits each if you click on them and hit "apply" :)
I tend to think that you're correct here, Validis; which is why I suggest reserving the /48 per customer whatever they decide to assign. I think the problem of expanding the assignment to a more reasonable size will happen on its own since at some point the support calls for "hey, I need more space!" will become a burden.
Doug --I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion, (continued)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Karl Auer (Jul 14)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Karl Auer (Jul 14)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Randy Bush (Jul 14)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion David Conrad (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Doug Barton (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Stephen Satchell (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Joe Maimon (Jul 15)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Tim Franklin (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Owen DeLong (Jul 09)
- RE: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Matthew Huff (Jul 09)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Mark Tinka (Jul 10)
- Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion Ricky Beam (Jul 09)