[130980] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Mon Oct 18 18:15:51 2010
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:45:31 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1010181431330.21349@qbhto.arg>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT)
Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> 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.
>
While I like the idea of /48s per customer ("per-nearly everybody"), I
do think this approach is a good, slightly more conservative approach.
Regards,
Mark.
