nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:19:49 -0700
Because the designers of IPv6 didn’t want to bake the hardware constraints of equipment available 10+ years ago (20?) into the addressing plan for the future. Hanging 4k customers off a switch is a current hardware limitation which has almost nothing to do with IPv6 other than not being possible in IPv4 due to limitations in IPv4 whereas IPv6 does not impose such limitations in the L3 protocol. Think of it like consecutive apertures… If you are looking through a pinhole, you can’t see that your entire view is through the center hole of a washer 1/2” behind the pinhole. (IPv4 is the pinhole in this case, modern hardware is the washer). If you open up the pinhole, suddenly the washer becomes visible. IPv6 is everything beyond the washer visible and obscured. Owen
On Sep 8, 2015, at 13:13 , Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> wrote: If you can't hang 4k customers off a switch, why does IPv6 need so many bits for the host portion? Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 19:40:44 -0000, Josh Moore said:The question becomes manageability. Unique VLAN per customer is not always scalable. For example, only ~4000 VLAN tags. What happens when you have more than that many customers?If you're hanging 4K customers off the same switch, you probably have bigger issues than running out of VLAN tags...We are talking very, very, small customers here. SOHO to say the most. /64 should be more than sufficient for their CPE router.A Linksys WNDR3800 running CeroWRT (and probably OpenWRT by now) will prefer to create multiple /64's - one for the 4 wired ports, one for private access on the 2.4G radio, one for guest access on the 2.4, and another private/guest pair on the 5G radio. So there is CPE gear out there now that can blow through 5 /64s by default, and more if you enable VLANs. A /56 allocated via DHCPv6-PD would be a *minimum*. And prefixes are cheap, so you may as well hand them a /48, just in case they have a second WNDR3800 at the other end of the building for coverage - because that one will then ask the upstream one for a -PD allocation. So if you give the CPE a /48, it can keep a /56 for itself, and hand the downstream a /56, and they can each allocate /64s as needed. And remember - prefixes are cheap and plentiful, so don't bother with /52 or /60, just split on 8-bit boundaries to make life easier for yourself...
Current thread:
- IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- RE: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 08)
- RE: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- RE: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Matthew Kaufman (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Mark Tinka (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 09)
- RE: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Baldur Norddahl (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Josh Moore (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Clinton Work (Sep 08)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Clinton Work (Sep 09)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Owen DeLong (Sep 10)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Bjørn Mork (Sep 12)
- Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments Mark Tinka (Sep 09)