[106960] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Mon Aug 18 17:43:58 2008
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808181711510.12939@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:43:20 -0400
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM
>To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>>
>>> Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
>>> like wasting addresses :)
>>
>> That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
>>
>> For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
>> generally have a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning:
>> for a customer that only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not
>> feasible to create a separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of
>> addresses. But invariably, these customers on shared subnets grow, so
>> over time the logical subnet gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks
>> that are shared by a relatively large number of customers, and because
>> of resistance to renumbering, it's impossible to fix this later on.
>
>I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
>earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
>point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses. In that
>case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or at the
>maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.
Actually, in most cases - you would assign customers more than a /64.
*Hopefully* a /56 as the smallest ... ~/48 for enterprises ...
>
>jms
/TJ
