[182115] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jul 10 12:23:49 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <559F7B59.5040101@ttec.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:23:36 -0700
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 00:59 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com> wrote:
>=20
> There has been tomes on this topic. There will continue to be many =
more.
>=20
> That is because many of you continue in trying to defend the following =
concept.
>=20
> customer subnet bits =3D=3D isp customers bits
>=20
> So now, the ISP is supposed to put some effort and gain more bits. Why =
not the customer?
>=20
> Its inherently suspicious. Because its inherently wrong - for the ISP, =
and possibly for the address space as well.
>=20
> Indulge me as I wax poetic.
>=20
> I venture to say that proponents want to see everyone else have the =
service of their own dreams. When broadband rolled to the masses with a =
single ipv4 address per subscriber, forget about routing, their hearts =
broke. The new common denominator was a far cry from what their =
experience was. The division of internet into different classes of =
netizens a bitter pill to swallow. You are only one budget cut away from =
joining the ho-poloi. Its quite scary.
>=20
> Hence the determination that no user should ever have to go without =
enough addresses ever again. A new common denominator, now is the time =
to get it accepted!
>=20
> It will be like the old days, a class C with every leased line! =
Forever!
I will concur with most of this.
>=20
> And the ISPs?
>=20
> They have enough to get started and they can get more if they put the =
effort in.
Actually, as has been pointed out earlier by me and Valdis at least, =
they can get enough to last a good long time up front if they just do a =
little bit of napkin math before submitting their request.
Here=E2=80=99s how it works:
JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP and Bait shop serves their customers from 25 =
distinct wiring centers. They expect to deploy another 50 wiring centers =
over the next 5 years.
Their largest wiring center supports 5,000,000 customers.
Representing 5,000,000 requires 23 bits. Rounded up to a multiple of 4 =
becomes 24 bits. At 24 bits, 5,000,000 is < 75% of the available /48s. =
So 24 bits is a good number.
Representing 75 wiring centers requires another 6 bits. Rounded up to a =
multiple of 4 becomes 8 bits. At 8 bits, 75 is < 75% of the 256 =
available numbers, so 8 is a good number.
24 + 8 is 32.
48 - 32 is 16.
JimBob=E2=80=99s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16.
Other RIRs are a little different, but still usually not terribly hard =
to get a large allocation if it can be even remotely justified.
> So all the rational and logical debate is pointless. Gut feelings, =
philosophy and emotions are what is at stake and those tend not to =
respond well to things like logic and reason.
Perhaps. Unfortunately, I think it is more the long-prefix crowd that is =
going on gut feelings. Unless you can show me how there=E2=80=99s harm =
to the ISPs from /48s per end site, or any other logic to support the =
need to retain the concept of second-class netizens, then I think logic =
is on the side of a more egalitarian internet.
Owen
