[114311] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Wed May 6 01:49:51 2009
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 07:49:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <1241587670.8158.149.camel@karl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
>
> Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
>
> Honest question - what's the difference?
Because more is more, and it makes it less likely that people will start
to invent silly solutions to problems that do not really exist. With a
/56, I can't really imagine this being not enough for 99.9% of households
in 10 years, whereas I CAN imagine a household that needs more than 16
subnetworks, plus the PD model described in an earlier email makes a /56
more suited for chaining.
We have no address shortage, there is little good to come out of trying to
use as few IPv6 addresses as possible by means of constraints that are not
necessary (let's be "wasteful" the first 50-100 years and "waste" the
first /3, then we can look into if this is a problem or not).
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
