Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

How do you figure that?

Owen

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 04:14 , Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:
>
> Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Philip Dorr" <tagno25 () gmail com> 
> To: "Rob McEwen" <rob () invaluement com> 
> Cc: "nanog group" <nanog () nanog org> 
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM 
> Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") 
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen <rob () invaluement com> wrote: 
> > On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: 
> > > IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's 
> > > rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's 
> > > still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so 
> > > their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get. 
> >
> >
> > A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not the 
> > 256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit hoster 
> > assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of 
> > collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, should 
> > just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have a 
> > compromised system one day. 
>
> As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a 
> minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a 
> /32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they 
> deserve all the pain they receive.