[167139] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 2 16:44:00 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hhspintfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:42:02 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2013, at 13:25 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> =
wrote:
>> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse =
6rd...
>=20
> Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) =
demonstrable user want/need.
>=20
> How many residential, "home networks", have you seen with more than =
one subnet? The typical household (esp Uverse) doesn't even customize =
the provided router. Even a CCIE friend of mine has made ZERO changes =
to his RG -- AT&T turned off WiFi and added the static block at install. =
(I know NANOG is bad sample as we're all professionals and setup all =
kinds of weird configurations at "home". I have 3 nets in continuous =
use... a legacy public subnet from eons ago (I never renumbered), an =
RFC1918 subnet overlapping that network (because it's too small), and a =
second RFC1918 net from a second ISP)
Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways =
now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.
However, as I have repeatedly said... IPv6 is not about just what we =
need today. What we need today is limited to what we could do with the =
scarcity inherent in IPv4 addressing. Restricting IPv6 based on those =
limitations is absurd.
IPv6 should be about what we want to be able to do in 5, 10, 20, and 50 =
years. It shouldn't be about what we need today.
>=20
> I wouldn't use the word "generous", but a /60 (16 "LAN"s) is way more =
than what 99% of residential deployments will need for many years.
I'm not so sure about that, depending on how you define "many". Worse, =
if it becomes the widespread lowest common denominator, then it will =
become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that engineers will =
design to what users have instead of to what users should be able to =
get.
> We've gotten by with a single, randomly changing, dynamic IP for =
decades. Until routers come out-of-the-box setup for a dozen networks, =
non-networking pros aren't going to need it, or even know that it's =
possible. (and the default firewalling policy in Windows is going to =
confuse a lot of people when machines start landing in different subnets =
can "see" each other.)
Yes, we've suffered with a severely degraded internet for decades. Is =
that really a reason not to make things better going forward? I don't =
think so.
Routers are already starting to come out of the box with the ability to =
do prefix delegation and being able to connect multiple routers together =
into automatically generated hierarchies is a technology that is just =
beginning to be explored.
Given that Cell Phones and Tablets are already widely used as routers, I =
don't think that increasing router ubiquity is all that unlikely in the =
home market in just a few years.
>=20
> Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone =
*is* paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256 =
networks when they're only ever likely to use one or two (or maybe =
four), is intentionally wasting space you could've assigned to someone =
else. (or **sold** to someone else :-)) IPv6 may be huge to the power of =
huge, but it's still finite. People like you are repeating the same =
mistakes from the early days of IPv4... the difference is, we won't be =
around when people are cursing us for the way we mismanaged early =
allocations. Indeed, a /64 is too little (aka "bare minimum") and far =
too restrictive, but it works for most simple (default) setups today. =
Which leads to DHCPv6 PD... a /60 is adequate -- it's the minimal space =
for the rare cases where multiple nets are desirable or necessary. The =
option for /56 or even /48 should exist (esp. for "business"), but the =
need for such large address spaces are an EXCEPTION in residential =
settings. (and those are probably non-residential users anyway.) [FWIW, =
HE.net does what they do as marketing. And it works, btw.]
I hate to break it to you, but, no, nobody is really paying for that =
space. There is no inherent cost to address space relative to the size =
of the address space. The cost is related to administering the =
registrations of that space.
Once you get above a certain size, your ARIN fees do not go up.
If you have fewer than 60,000 customers, you can give all of them a /48 =
for $2000/year. That works out to less than $0.04 per customer per year. =
If you have fewer than 1,000,000 customers, you can give all of them a =
/48 for $4,000/year which works out to less than $0.005 per customer per =
year.
By the way, those numbers leave GENEROUS room for ISP internal =
infrastructure, overhead, etc. (536 /48s in the first case and 48,576 =
/48s in the second case).
Arguing that "someone is paying for those addresses" just doesn't work =
out when you look at the actual costs.
There are enough /48s available in 2000::/3 to give every person alive =
from now until 2050 16 /48s and still have many left over.
For all of you who keep wanting to repeat the scarcity problems of IPv4 =
in IPv6 and waste the space by leaving it sitting on the shelf instead =
of wasting it by handing it out to users, I offer this compromise...
Let's try giving out /48s liberally in 2000::/3. If we exhaust 2000::/3 =
before I am dead, I will be the first one to help you champion more =
restrictive policies for the remaining 7/8ths of IPv6. (I expect to live =
something close to another 50 years and there's not much I can to do =
help with more restrictive policies beyond my death anyway).
Owen
