Re: A crazy idea

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe <daniel () corbe net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > tim () pelican org wrote:
> > > On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" <list () satchell net> said:
> > >
> > > > The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
> > > > consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
> > > > governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
> > > > /96, /104 or even /112 allocations if they could get them.  (Just how
> > > > many light bulbs, fridges, toasters, doorbells, phones, &c does SOHOs
> > > > have?)  I would *not* like to see "us" make the same mistake with IPv6
> > > > that was made with IPv4, handing out large blocks of space like so many
> > > > pieces of M&M or Skittles candy.
> > > Nay, nay, and thrice nay.  Don't think in terms of addresses for IPv6, think in terms of subnets.  I can't stress 
> > > this enough, it's the big v4 to v6 paradigm shift - don't think about "how many hosts on this net", think about 
> > > "how many nets".
> >
> > Think of how many large ISP's a /3 of ipv6 effectively holds, assuming that /48 per customer is the norm, and /24 up 
> > to /12 assignments for those ISP's is also.
> >
> > In those terms IPv6 isnt that much bigger.
>
> I haven’t seen evidence that any RIR has allocated an entire /12 to an ISP.  Even a large one.  

I haven’t seen any evidence that an ISP has requested a /12 from an RIR. How would an RIR issue a block that hasn’t 
been requested?

Owen