[175063] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Faisal Imtiaz)
Thu Oct 9 00:25:12 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 04:18:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net>
To: Royce Williams <royce@techsolvency.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+E3k92+c0Zt20XVtj+svfJk2F2y0T37XYSWaGZ_=g-W3ey7aA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Awesome, Thank you Royce, the missing piece has clicked in place...
:)
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Royce Williams" <royce@techsolvency.com>
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net>
> Cc: "Sam Silvester" <sam.silvester@gmail.com>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:51 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving
> out
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < faisal@snappytelecom.net >
> wrote:
> > Like I said, this was my understanding.... I am glad that it is being
> > pointed
> > out to be in-correct....
>
> > I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason
> > Why NOT....
>
> > So, let me ask the question in a different manner...
>
> > What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a
> > Residential
> > customer (vs a /64).
>
> Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177):
> While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management
> for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful.
> For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees)
> would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home
> user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a
> small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that
> the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few
> decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K
> subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be
> tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already
> significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice.
> However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will
> grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is
> strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets
> worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends
> giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not
> recommend that every home site be given a /48 either.
> A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on
> address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6.
> For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for
> the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a
> savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the "total projected address
> consumption" by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The
> exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users
> compared with the number of larger sites.)
> The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving
> home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56.
> Royce
