[143544] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Aug 11 20:26:23 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EF6044D-EC3D-4606-885C-3E5C78B22D9D@internode.com.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:21:08 -0700
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc@internode.com.au>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>=20
> On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an =
allocation
>>>> will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet =
deployment
>>>> towards liberal enough allocations to avoid such disability for the
>>>> future.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> I see the lack of agreement on whether /48 or /56 or /60 is good for =
a
>>> home network to be a positive thing.
>>>=20
>>> As long as there's no firm consensus, router vendors will have to =
implement
>>> features which don't make silly hard-coded assumptions.
>>>=20
>> Yes and no. In terms of potential innovations, if enough of the =
market chooses
>> /60, they will hard code the assumption that they cannot count on =
more than
>> a /60 being available into their development process regardless of =
what
>> gets into the router. Sure, they won't be able to assume you can't =
get a /48,
>> but, they also won't necessarily implement features that would take =
advantage
>> of a /48.
>=20
>=20
> Abundance doesn't drive innovations. Scarcity does. IPv6 does not =
have a scarcity issue. I assert that IPv6 addressing is not going to =
now or ever do anything particularly innovative that can't be done =
better at other, more relevant, layers. =20
>=20
Abundance won't drive innovation, but, scarcity can block it.
If enough providers limit their residential customers to /60s, then, =
that will become the defining limit to which vendors implement.
> The time for arguing about arbitrary things that make no difference to =
the end customers has passed. The navel gazing must cease and we must =
move forward on IPv6 to the home rather than continuing the confusion =
about this and other IPv6 arbitrary bit obsession stuff.
>=20
On that I believe we are in complete agreement. Let's deploy IPv6 to end =
users and give them /48s and move on.
> We need to stop spending our time on rearranging the Titanic's =
deckchairs and get the <profanity> on with stopping the crashing into =
the iceberg by providing clear leadership on getting IPv6 to the masses =
to enable their APPLICATIONS and EXPERIENCE without the impending doom =
of IPv4 CGN.
>=20
Again, no argument.
> My name is Matthew, I HAVE given my customers the ability to get IPv6 =
and I don't give a flying one about the prefix length, I care about =
getting ANY prefix to the end users so they can use it and solve the =
issues at their end. I AM enabling innovation just by doing that. =20
>=20
My name is Owen. I work for an ISP that gives IPv6 to our customers and =
anyone else who cares to connect.
We care about prefix length because we believe it will impact innovation =
for many years.
Yes, getting something to end users is more important than how big of a =
prefix we give them. On that, MMC and I are in complete agreement.
However, there are choices to be made in how we do it and giving out =
/48s costs virtually nothing and yields real potential benefits. There
is no meaningful advantage to placing arbitrary limits below /48 on =
residential customers.
Owen
