Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 21:18 , James R Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com <mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com>> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro allocations to their customers.
What exactly is your definition of “micro allocations”? Is a prefix/56 a “micro allocation”? In over nine years of being an active forum participant and customer of Comcast, I can not recall the usage of the term.
They’re issuing /60s (maximum) to residential customers.
And yes, a /56 is a micro allocation. /48 is the intended norm for IPv6 site assignments and is a perfectly reasonable prefix size for v6 delegation to a site.
Owen
/48 as universal site assignments is a ridiculousness that should never be a norm, and unsurprisingly in the real world it isnt. Now if your goal is to pick a number which will never change and is large enough to work for any assignment anywhere for any network topology ever, well you found it. However, thats a solution in search of a problem. Which causes its own problems. A /48 gives 16 bits of /64 subnetting for the site. Which is the same number of bits initial default ISP /32 has. Ridiculous in either direction. If you apply the same logic to ISP's that you have to end user site assignments (which is descended from the same logic as /64 subnets), you need to move left. Again. Goodbye limitless ipv6. Or you can move right on the /64 nonsense. SLAAC does not|should not need /64. Or, SLAAC isnt needed at all. Chaining DHCP to SLAAC is more nonsense. Joe