Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for 
> > IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we 
> > haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking.
>
> Q:    Why are /48s everywhere a good idea?
> A:    Because it's the design!
>
> Q:    Why are /48s everywhere in the design?
> A?    Because it's a good idea!
>
> This kind of crap is one of the reasons people get frustrated with IPv6 
> zealotry. If people are actually interested in deploying IPv6 then by 
> all means, STOP BITCHING AT THEM ABOUT HOW THEY DO IT. Problems like the 
> wrong allocation to end users are fixable, especially given that the 
> vast majority of end user assignments are dynamic in the first place.
>
> The model I've been advocating is for ISPs (who have enough space) to 
> start off reserving a /48 per customer and then assigning the first /56 
> from it. If after real operational experience it turns out /48 is the 
> right answer, you're all set. If /56 turns out to be sufficient, when 
> you use up all of the first /56s you can start on the first /56 in the 
> second /49, etc.

While I like the idea of /48s per customer ("per-nearly everybody"), I
do think this approach is a good, slightly more conservative approach.

Regards,
Mark.