nanog mailing list archives
Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:28:15 +0100
On 19 dec 2007, at 13:09, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 19 Dec 2007, at 11:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:So, out of our /32, if we assign each customer a /48 we can only support 65k customers. So in order to support millions of customers, we need a new allocation and I would really like for each new subnet allocated to be very much larger so we in the forseeable future don't need to get a newer one. So for larger ISPs with millions of customers, next step after /32 should be /20 (or in that neighborhood). Does RIPE/ARIN policy conform to this, so we don't end up with ISPs themselves having tens of aggregates (we don't need to drive the default free FIB more than what's really needed).
RIPE has been giving out _extremely_ large IPv6 blocks on occasion. I'm sure that the other RIRs will also give you a bigger block than / 32 if you expect to need more than that, so please don't limit what you give to your customers.
From the RIPE perspective, there are seven "empty" /32s between my / 32 and the next allocation.
I imagine this is fully intentional, and allows the NCC to grow my v6 address pool, without growing my footprint in the v6 routing table.
Unfortunately, they do this without there being a community-supported policy in place.
IPv4 experience also shows that people rarely merge the adjoining space with the existing block when they get the extra space. So all this does is fragment the address space and make prefix length filters harder. This is really a very bad policy.
Current thread:
- /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?), (continued)
- /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Jeroen Massar (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Andy Davidson (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Christopher Morrow (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Jeroen Massar (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Jeroen Massar (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Owen DeLong (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 19)
- Re: /48 for each and every endsite (Was: European ISP enables IPv6 for all?) JAKO Andras (Dec 19)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 19)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Jeroen Massar (Dec 19)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Kevin Oberman (Dec 19)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? JAKO Andras (Dec 18)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Adrian Chadd (Dec 18)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? JAKO Andras (Dec 18)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Donald Stahl (Dec 18)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Christopher Morrow (Dec 17)
- Re: European ISP enables IPv6 for all? Mark Smith (Dec 18)