On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:08:10 -0800 "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com> wrote:
First, thanks everyone for the discussion. I learned more from this than a LOT of other discussions on IPv6. I now have a plan and I didn't before...
It looks to me that one really has to know his customer's needs to plan out the allocation of IPv6 space. That leads me to believe that a /56 is going to work for everyone on this network because, at this time, only very, very few of our largest customers might possibly have a need for more than 256 /64 subnets. In fact, almost all household DSL customers here only have one LAN and I could get away with /64s for them because they wouldn't know the difference. But in an effort to simplify the lives of the network folks here I am thinking of a /56 for everyone and a /48 on request.
Out of curiosity, what in form would a request for a /48 need to be? A checkbox on the application form, or some sort of written justification? Remember that with an initial RIR allocation of a /32, you've got 65K /48s ... so they're pretty cheap to give away.
Now I just gotta wrap my brain around 4.7x10^21 addresses for each customer. Absolutely staggering.
Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes you can attach to a single LAN with 2^46 unicast addresses? That's a staggering number too. Regards, Mark.
scott
--- randy@psg.com wrote:
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> CC: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:19:27 +0900
vendors, like everyone else, will do what is in their best interests. as i am an operator, not a vendor, that is often not what is in my best interest, marketing literature aside. i believe it benefits the ops community to be honest when the two do not seem to coincide. If the ops community doesn't provide enough addresses and a way to use them then the vendors will do the same thing they did in v4.
i presume you mean nat v6/v6. this would be a real mess and i don't think anyone is contending it is desirable. but this discussion is ostensibly operators trying to understand what is actually appropriate and useful for a class of customers, i believe those of the consumer, soho, and similar scale.
to summarize the positions i think i have heard o one /64 subnet per device, but the proponent gave no estimate of the number of devices o /48 o /56 o /64 the latter three all assuming that the allocation would be different if the site had actual need and justification.
personally, i do not see an end site needing more than 256 subnets *by default*, though i can certainly believe a small minority of them need more and would use the escape clause. so, if we, for the moment, stick to the one /64 per subnet religion, than a /56 seems sufficient for the default allocation.
personally, i have a hard time thinking that any but a teensie minority, who can use the escape clause, need more than 256. hence, i just don't buy the /48 position.
personally, i agree that one subnet is likely to be insufficient in a large proportion of cases. so keeping to the /64 per subnet religion, a /64 per site is insufficient for the default.
still personally, i think the one /64 subnet per device is analogous to one receptacle per mains breaker, i.e. not sensible.
there are three legs to the tripod network operator user equipment manufacturer They have (or should have) a mutual interest in: Transparent and automatic configuration of devices.
as you have seen from chris's excellent post [0] on this one, one size does not fit all. this is likely another worthwhile, but separate, discussion.
The assignment of globally routable addresses to internet connected devices
i suspect that there are folk out there who equate nat with security. i suspect we both think them misguided.
The user having some control over what crosses the boundry between their network and the operators.
yup
randy
---
[0] - <http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg04887.html>
-- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"