[130994] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Mon Oct 18 22:24:25 2010
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:24:13 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <86aambhw90.fsf@seastrom.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/18/2010 5:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> sthaug@nethelp.no writes:
>
>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
>> same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
>>
>> We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
>> this.
>
> If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we
> would use about .000025 of the total available IPv6 address space.
I'm confused. The "hand out /48s everywhere" crowd keeps saying that we
need to do that because we haven't yet anticipated everything that end
users might want to do with a /48 on their CPE. On the wider issue of
"we don't yet understand everything that can be done with the space" I
think we're in agreement. However my conclusion is that "therefore we
should be careful to preserve the maximum flexibility possible."
After we have some operational experience with IPv6 we will be in a
position to make better decisions; but we have to GET operational
experience first. Grousing about lack of adherence to holy writ in that
deployment doesn't help anybody.
And now I'm repeating myself, so that's all for tonight ...
Doug
--
Breadth of IT experience, and | Nothin' ever doesn't change,
depth of knowledge in the DNS. | but nothin' changes much.
Yours for the right price. :) | -- OK Go
http://SupersetSolutions.com/
