On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe <daniel@corbe.net> wrote:
On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon <jmaimon@jmaimon.com> wrote:
tim@pelican.org wrote:
On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" <list@satchell.net> said:
The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a consideration for bigger administrative domains like country governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with /96, /104 or even /112 allocations if they could get them. (Just how many light bulbs, fridges, toasters, doorbells, phones, &c does SOHOs have?) I would *not* like to see "us" make the same mistake with IPv6 that was made with IPv4, handing out large blocks of space like so many pieces of M&M or Skittles candy. Nay, nay, and thrice nay. Don't think in terms of addresses for IPv6, think in terms of subnets. I can't stress this enough, it's the big v4 to v6 paradigm shift - don't think about "how many hosts on this net", think about "how many nets".
Think of how many large ISP's a /3 of ipv6 effectively holds, assuming that /48 per customer is the norm, and /24 up to /12 assignments for those ISP's is also.
In those terms IPv6 isnt that much bigger.
I haven’t seen evidence that any RIR has allocated an entire /12 to an ISP. Even a large one.
I haven’t seen any evidence that an ISP has requested a /12 from an RIR. How would an RIR issue a block that hasn’t been requested? Owen