nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP customer assignments
From: "Wayne E. Bouchard" <web () typo org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:34:51 -0700
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:18:23PM +0200, Jens Link wrote:
"Brian Johnson" <bjohnson () drtel com> writes:So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would be given 2^64 addresses? I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That?s the IPv4 Internet^2 for a single device!Most people will have more than one device. And there is no NAT as you know it from IPv4 (and hopefully there never will be. I had to troubleshoot a NAT related problem today and it wasn't fun.[1]) And I want more than one network I want to have a firewall between my fridge and my file server.Am I still seeing/reading/understanding this correctly?RFC 3177 suggest a /48. Forget about IPv4 when assigning IPv6 Networks to customers. Think big an take a one size fits all(most) customers approach. Assign a /48 or /56 to your customers and they will never ask you about additional IPs again. This make Documentation relay easy. ;-) cheers Jens
Am I the only one that finds this problematic? I mean, the whole point of moving to a 128 bit address was to ensure that we would never again have a problem of address depletion. Now I'm not saying that this puts us anywhere in that boat (yet) but isn't saying "oh, lets just put a /64 on every interface" pretty well ignoring the lessons of the last 20 years? Surely a /96 or even a /112 would have been just as good. Lets think longer term... IPv4 is several decades old now and still in use. If IPv6 lasts another 50 years before someone decides that it needs a redo, with current practices, what will things look like? Consider the population at that point and consider the number of interfaces as more and more devices become IP enabled. "wireless" devices have their own issues to content with (spectrum being perhaps the biggest limiter) so wired devices will always be around. That means physical interfaces and probably multiple LANs in each residence. I can see where each device may want its own LAN and will talk to components of itself using IP internally, perhaps even having a valid reason for having these individual components publically addressable. Like I said, I'm not necessarily saying we're going to find ourselves in that boat again but it does seem as though more thought is required. (And yes, I fully realize the magnitude of 2^64. I also fully realize how quickly inexhaustable resources become rationable.) -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web () typo org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Current thread:
- ISP customer assignments Brian Johnson (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Seth Mattinen (Oct 05)
- RE: ISP customer assignments Brian Johnson (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Nick Hilliard (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Michael Dillon (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments TJ (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Jens Link (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Wayne E. Bouchard (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Joe Greco (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Re: ISP customer assignments Tim Chown (Oct 05)
- RE: ISP customer assignments Brian Johnson (Oct 05)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: ISP customer assignments Chris Owen (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dan White (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Michael Dillon (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Seth Mattinen (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments bmanning (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Dorn Hetzel (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments bmanning (Oct 05)
- RE: ISP customer assignments TJ (Oct 05)
- Re: ISP customer assignments Owen DeLong (Oct 05)