On Jul 29, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 29 July 2010 15:49, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
If we give every household on the planet a /48 (approximately 3 billion /48s), we consume less than 1/8192 of 2000::/3.
There are 65,536 /48s in a /32. It's not about how available 2000::/3 is, it's hassle to keep requesting additional PA space. Some ISPs literally have millions of customers.
If you have millions of customers, why get a /32? Why not take that fact and ask for the right amount of space? 1,000,000 customers should easily qualify you for a /24 or thereabouts. If you have 8,000,000 customers, you should probably be asking for a /20 or thereabouts. It's not rocket science to ask for enough address space, and, if you have the number of customers to justify it based on a /48 per customer, the RIRs will happily allocate it to you.
All I'm saying is, why waste the space when they're only going to need 1 subnet? If they want more than one subnet, give them a /48,/56,/60 or whatever, as requested.
For at least the following reasons: 1. A single subnet may be the norm today because residential users and there vendors have been in a scarcity of addresses mentality for so long that applications to take full advantage of internet as it should be haven't been possible. That will change. 2. A single subnet may be enough for many (definitely not all and possibly not even most) today, but, certainly won't be the norm for long once IPv6 is more ubiquitous. 3. It places unnecessary limitations on the user and makes it unnecessarily more difficult to deploy additional capabilities. 4. Your increasing the workload on your own staff as your customers realize that one subnet is no longer enough and come back to you for larger assignments. 5. It's short sighted and assumes that the current IPv4 model will permanently apply to IPv6. Why waste valuable people's time to conserve nearly valueless renewable resources? Owen