nanog mailing list archives
RE: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:27:58 -0000
The answer so far is that EVERYBODY gets a /48, but if youthink thatthere is a risk that you won't be able to get additional/32s when yououtgrow your first allocation, then give a /56 to RESIDENTIAL SITES. This is not the same as dialup, i.e. residential sites could be connected with DSL, T1s, wireless, or whatever. In fact, ifa businessis connected via dialup, you should give them a /48, because businesses have a habit of continuous growth, unlikeresidences whichtend to top out at 5 or 6 residents.We will probably disagree about this one. I will probably give out /48 to residential broadband when we expand IPv6 to residential. But dialup users typically have zero networks; not even the single LAN of res broadband.
I'm not talking about old folks hanging on to their 386 running Windows 3.1. There is a vast expanse of real estate known as rural America that is unlikely to get broadband anytime soon due to the large distance from the exchange. But these residential sites are often also family businesses with a network in the barn, one in the feed silo, etc., etc. They deserve to be assigned an IPv6 allocation under the same terms as urban sites, i.e. a /48. Admittedly there are issues in getting IPv6 access to these folks but in a world in which there aren't enough free IPv4 addresses, it is still doable using an IPv4 island containing their modem gateway, your terminal server and your IPv6 tunnel broker. Because it's an IPv4 island you can hijack any old IPv4 addresses and nobody will notice. And using IPv4 for transport avoids the need to upgrade PPP and terminal servers to support IPv6. Those old IPv4 terminal servers aren't likely to wear out anytime soon.
Not that changing "all" of our IPv6 dialup users would take more than a couple of calls :). Talk about a narrow niche.
For a rural ISP, it might be the core of their business. One size does not fit all. There is still room for good old-fashioned hackery in making an IPv6 Internet functional, just like the early days of the commercial Internet when people were building terminal servers out of Linux boxes, and hacking things like PoP before SMTP to glue things together. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?, (continued)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Rick Astley (Jan 04)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? James Hess (Jan 04)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 04)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Jeff Aitken (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Deepak Jain (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? John Dupuy (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Mark Smith (Jan 07)
- RE: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? michael.dillon (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? John Dupuy (Jan 07)
- RE: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? michael.dillon (Jan 08)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Joel Jaeggli (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? John Dupuy (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Joel Jaeggli (Jan 07)
- RE: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Kenneth Mix (Jan 07)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Niels Bakker (Jan 08)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 08)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Stuart Henderson (Jan 08)
- RE: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Miguel A. Diaz (Jan 08)
- Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's? Mohacsi Janos (Jan 03)