Re: using ULA for 'hidden' v6 devices?

["Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>]

Tim Chown <tjc () ecs soton ac uk> writes:

> On 26 Jan 2012, at 16:53, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> >
> > > Does this mean we're also looking at residential allocations larger
> > > than a /64 as the norm?
> >
> > We certainly should be. I still think that /48s for residential is
> > the right answer.
> >
> > My /48 is working quite nicely in my house.
>
> There seems to be a lot of discussion happening around a /60 or /56.
> I wouldn't assume a /48 for residential networks, or a static
> prefix.

The big question is what constitutes an "end site" and do we want/need
to have multiple classes of "end site" in the interests of conserving
IPv6 space, or do we want to have only a single class in the interests
of conserving technical person brain cells?

Food for thought:

   There are approximately 7 billion people in the world right now.  US
   billion, 10^9.

   If we defined an "end site" as an "Internet provider access device
   that could allow subsidiary devices to connect downstream...

   AND

   Every human on the face of the earth was Avi Freedman or Vijay Gill and
   had ten cell phones that would act as APs, each of which with its own /48...

   THEN...

   We would be using between 2^36 and 2^37 end site allocations (70 billion).
   OR
   between a /11 and a /12
   OR
   right around 0.03% of the space, assuming 100% utilization efficiency.

If the goal in putting small chunks of space at residences is to
conserve space in order to fit within the RIR's policies, then it is
the policies that ought to change.

Stewardship is not the same as parsimony.

-r