[130975] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Mon Oct 18 17:39:34 2010
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <A09925EE-1321-476A-8236-2D4D8E18A03D@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for
> IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we
> haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking.
Q: Why are /48s everywhere a good idea?
A: Because it's the design!
Q: Why are /48s everywhere in the design?
A? Because it's a good idea!
This kind of crap is one of the reasons people get frustrated with IPv6
zealotry. If people are actually interested in deploying IPv6 then by
all means, STOP BITCHING AT THEM ABOUT HOW THEY DO IT. Problems like the
wrong allocation to end users are fixable, especially given that the
vast majority of end user assignments are dynamic in the first place.
The model I've been advocating is for ISPs (who have enough space) to
start off reserving a /48 per customer and then assigning the first /56
from it. If after real operational experience it turns out /48 is the
right answer, you're all set. If /56 turns out to be sufficient, when
you use up all of the first /56s you can start on the first /56 in the
second /49, etc.
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
