Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> > sthaug () nethelp no writes:
> >
> > > I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
> > > /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
> > > same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
> > >
> > > We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
> > > this.
> >
> > If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
> > would use about .000025 of the total available IPv6 address space.
> >
> > You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space.  Our
> > children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have
> > 99.99999% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry
> > 99.9975% that might have been their inheritance were it not for your
> > efforts.  Bravo!
>
> It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give out a /48 effectively 
> requires a  /16, and the number of /16s is by no means approximately infinite. 
That is why the AC chose to allow for a /56 per end-site in the transitional technology
policy (6rd is a transitional technology) and why we call for them to be issued from
a distinct prefix separate from native IPv6 deployments.

In this way, 6rd can be deployed sooner rather than later, but, we have the ability to
move forward to a cleaner native IPv6 deployment and deprecate 6rd when it is
no longer needed.

Owen