Re: IPv6 end user addressing

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Brian Mengel <bmengel () gmail com> wrote:
>
>
> > On the flip side, /56 allows for 16M end-users in your /32 ISP
> > allocation. After which you can trivially get as many additional /32's
> > as you want. Is there any reason you want to super-optimize to get
> > 268M end-users squashed in that /32?
>
> Arguably,  if you only have one /32,  and you ever get  65,536 customers
> each with a /48,  getting as many /32s as you need should be no problem,
> also.
>
> But you might want to give them /56s,   so you have more bits  to logically
> divide those customers by  region,  or   some other criteria  to enable
> more efficient aggregation.
Policy supports you getting those bits left of the /32 instead now.

Look at ARIN 2011-3 which was adopted and ratified by the board and
is awaiting implementation by staff.

If you like this idea, support APNIC prop 98, too, please.

> That's the problem with the RIR's choice of  issuing  only  /32s  from which
> /48s are to be assigned.
> The customer has  80 bits to work with  in organizing their hosts.

The /32 is only the default minimum for an ISP. A small ISP can probably work
with 16 bits. Larger ISPs were always expected to get more than a /32.

> But the ISP has only 16 bits  in a /32  to work with.

Only if they're very small or not very intelligent in their RIR application.

Owen

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: