Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> > My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big
> > enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy.  There is no shortage
> > of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage
> > of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a
> > /48?  But, from my provider's /32, that is only 4 levels at the
> > assumed nibble boundary.  I think my provider could use another
> > two levels.
>
> If your provide has more than 10,000 customers they should never have gotten a /32. The braindead notion that 
> everyone needed to rush out and get a /32 has not helped get IPv6 deployed. The /32 value was the default one for a 
> startup provider. Every provider with a customer base should have done a plan for a /48 per customer, then gotten the 
> right size block to start with. Any provider with a /32 and more than 10k customers needs to do that now and swap for 
> 'a real block', instead of trying to squeeze their customers into a tiny block due to their insufficient initial 
> request. 
ARIN proposal 121 is seeking to clarify this in the NRPM. I've
also submitted a similar proposal to APNIC and expect it to be
published shortly and discussed in Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, I won't be in Hong Kong for the discussion, but, I'm going
to try and participate remotely.

I encourage anyone facing the /32 is not enough problem at the
service provider (or anyone else for that matter) to get involved
and speak up in favor of proposal 121 and/or the APNIC
equivalent.

I intend to put forth similar proposals where necessary in the other RIRs
as well.

Owen