[131003] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Oct 19 05:19:18 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <35804BC3-9EFE-4CE4-B13A-F2E15C420EFA@americafree.tv>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:16:58 -0700
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
Cc: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>=20
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> sthaug@nethelp.no writes:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
>>> this.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our
>> children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they =
have
>> 99.99999% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry
>> 99.9975% that might have been their inheritance were it not for your
>> efforts. Bravo!
>>=20
>=20
> It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give =
out a /48 effectively=20
> requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by no means approximately =
infinite.=20
>=20
That is why the AC chose to allow for a /56 per end-site in the =
transitional technology
policy (6rd is a transitional technology) and why we call for them to be =
issued from
a distinct prefix separate from native IPv6 deployments.
In this way, 6rd can be deployed sooner rather than later, but, we have =
the ability to
move forward to a cleaner native IPv6 deployment and deprecate 6rd when =
it is
no longer needed.
Owen
