Jean-Francois.TremblayING@videotron.com writes:
IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time this line of reasoning [...]
Hopefully, the fullness of time won't apply to 6RD (this is what was being discussed here, not dual-stack).
I agree but there's a subtlety here - we don't want to get people used to parsimony in IPv6-land via chintzing out on deployments with a transition technology. There are dinosaurs in every organization who cling to the "monetizing addresses/subnets" model and will want to charge more for a /48 or a /56 and point to the market being used to a /60 or a /64, and it becomes the unfortunate task for folks like us to argue against that line of thinking. We've got a little over two decades worth of IPv4 penny-pinching to undo here, and the interim deployments ought to help that to the degree possible.
Most MSOs are planning /56s for native. ARIN 2011-3 is great, but it came a bit late (January 2012) for those who already had planned their network.
Yep, we're planning /56es for native at $DAYJOB too. Worse than /48s, not as bad as /64s or /60s. Not that ARIN policies constrain this at all; it was certainly possible before 2011-3 to get more than a /32 of space, it just wasn't as easy (certainly there was more than one org that managed to do it). As for the 6rd part, there was no 2010-12 6rd policy before December 2010... then again, before August 2010 there was no 6rd. :) I'm unfortunately quite familiar with the internal costs of a do-over in a large organization. -r