[182015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 9 12:36:03 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1b2903db305f4e1fa65400b0743397bd@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:35:56 -0700
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 9, 2015, at 08:42 , Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com> wrote:
>=20
> What am I missing? Is it just the splitting on the sextet boundary =
that is an issue, or do people think people really need 64k subnets per =
household?
>=20
It=92s the need for a large enough bitfield to do more flexible things =
with auto-delegation in a dynamic self-organizing topology.
8 is 2x2x2 and there=92s really no other way you can break it down. =
(2x4, 4x2, 2x2x2 is it.)
16 is 2x2x2x2 and allows many more possible topologies (4x4, 2x4x2, =
2x2x4, 2x8, 8x2, etc.)
> With /56 you are giving each residential customer:
>=20
> 256 subnets x 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts per subnet.
The host count is irrelevant to the discussion.
>=20
> I would expect at least 95.0% of residential customers are using 1 =
subnet, and 99.9% are using less than 4. I can understand people =
complaining when some ISPs were deciding to only give out a /64, but =
even with new ideas, new protocols and new applications, do people =
really think residential customers will need more than 256 subnets? When =
such a magical new system is developed, and people start to want it, =
can't ISPs start new /48 delegations? Since DHCP-PD and their =
infrastructure will already be setup for /56, it may not be easy, but it =
shouldn't be that difficult.
I would expect that basing decisions about limits on tomorrows network =
on the inadequacy of today=92s solutions is unlikely to yield good =
results.
Further, I=92m not so sure you are right in your belief. I suspect that =
there are many more networks in most households that you are not =
counting. Sure, those networks are currently usually disjoint, but do =
you really think it will always be that way in the future?
Every phone is a router. Ever tablet is a router. Cars are becoming =
routers and in some cases, collections of routers. Set top boxes are =
becoming routers.
Utility meters are becoming routers.
Laptops and desktops are capable of being routers.
> I know the saying "build it and they will come....", but seriously....
>=20
> I'd rather ISPs stop discussing deploying IPv6, and start doing it=85
I=92m all for that, but do you have a valid reason not to give out /48s =
per end site? Just because /56 might be enough doesn=92t cut it=85 I=92m =
asking if you can point to any tangible benefit obtained from handing =
out /56s instead? Is there any problem solved, labor saved, or any other =
benefit whatsoever to giving out /56s instead of /48s?
If not, then let=92s hand out /48s until we discover one.
Owen
