[156391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Ignorance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Dunlap)
Mon Sep 17 11:15:25 2012
In-Reply-To: <76417C56-97C0-4DAE-9DF5-E8DEA7F0F2C9@logic.org.uk>
From: Blake Dunlap <ikiris@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:14:11 -0500
To: Adrian Bool <aid@logic.org.uk>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Adrian Bool <aid@logic.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I don't really agree with the "IPv6 think" concept - but let's put that
> aside for now...
>
> The default allocation size from an RIR* to an LIR is a /32. For an LIR
> providing /48 site allocations to their customers, they therefore have
> 16-bits of address space available to them to address their customers.
>
> So, even in "IPv6 think", homes that typically have one subnet have an
> equal number of bits to address their single subnet as an LIR has to
> address all of their customers.
>
> It seems illogical to me that we've got an 128-bit address space,
> featuring numbers far larger than any human can comprehend, yet the default
> allocation to an LIR allows them to address such a feeble number as 65,536
> customers - a number far smaller than the number of customers for medium to
> large ISPs.
>
> The default LIR allocation should be a several orders of magnitude greater
> than the typical customer base - not a smaller default allocation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> * At least for RIPE.
>
Note you say default, as in beginning point, not maximum.
-Blake
