[184391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robin Johansson)
Fri Oct 2 14:12:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:08:58 +0200
From: Robin Johansson <nanog@reth.se>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <639A3CAD-88A3-4CAB-BD36-2C0AC0D34B1B@silverlakeinternet.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--Sig_/GV/s6.FIQIZYIxxGV7eEZD7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi,
Stop counting /64 subnets the same way you count ipv4 addresses. The
proper concept to be able to have plug-and-play customer-grade
network equipment would be to use prefix delegation. Thus counting
levels of network devices instead.
Consider the scenario in the attached sketch.=20
It's a home with a router cpe that get's a block from isp via PD, could
be /56 or /48.
Customer have a wireless router connected, that requests a block from
cpe.
later the customer buys another wireless router to extend the network,
and connects it to the old wireless router where it requests a block.
This is a case that happens today already with multiple levels of NAT,
not something that might eventually happen in the future.
A reasonable assumption is that each sublevel device gets a PD block 4
bits longer then the last level. This allows for up to 15 directly
connected routers.
If the ISP hands out /56, then the first wireless router gets a /60
assigned, allowing for 16 attached /64 networks. The second wireless
router can't get an block (out of bits), and will not work,
plug-and-play breaks. This is likely to cause support calls as it
worked with ipv4 (using NAT4444).
If a /48 is assigned to each customer, then the first wireless router
gets a /52, second router a /56 and there is room to connect one more
level of devices. All works out of the box, everyone is happy, no
support calls.
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:56:54 -0600
Brett A Mansfield <lists@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
> The problem with this is some of us smaller guys don't have the
> ability to get IPv6 addresses from our upstream providers that don't
> support it. And even if we did do dual stack, then we're paying for
> both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The cost is just too high. ARIN should
> give anyone with a current IPv4 address block a free equivalently
> sized IPv6 block (256 IPv4 =3D 256 /56s or one /48 IPv6). If they did
> that, there would be a lot more IPv6 adoption in dual stack.=20
>=20
> I don't understand why anyone would give an end user a /48. That is
> over 65,000 individual devices. A /56 is 256 devices which is the
> standard /24 IPv4. What home user has that many devices??? A /56 to
> the home should be standard. Based on giving each customer a /56, I
> could run my entire small ISP off a single /48. I know there are a
> lot of IP addresses in the IPv6 realm, but why waste them? At the
> rate were going, everything will have an IP address soon. Maybe one
> day each item of your clothing will need their own IP address to tell
> you if it's time to wash or if it needs repair. Stranger things have
> happened.=20
>=20
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>=20
> > On Oct 2, 2015, at 8:27 AM, Steve Mikulasik
> > <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > I think more focus needs to be for carriers to deliver dual stack
> > to their customers door step, whether they demand/use it or not.
> > Small ISPs are probably in the best position to do this and will
> > help push the big boys along with time. If we follow the network
> > effect (reason why IPv4 lives and IPv6 is slowly growing), IPv6
> > needs more nodes, all other efforts are meaningless if they do not
> > result in more users having IPv6 delivered to their door.=20
> >=20
> > I think people get too lost in the weeds when they start focusing
> > on device support, home router support, user knowledge, etc. Just
> > get it working to the people and we can figure out the rest later.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> > Andrews Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:01 PM
> > To: Matthew Newton <mcn4@leicester.ac.uk>
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption
> >=20
> >=20
> > In message <20151001232613.GD123100@rootmail.cc.le.ac.uk>, Matthew
> > Newton writes:
> >=20
> > Additionally it is now a OLD addressing protocol. We are about to
> > see young adults that have never lived in a world without IPv6. It
> > may not have been universally available when they were born but it
> > was available. There are definitely school leavers that have never
> > lived in a world where IPv6 did not exist. My daughter will be one
> > of them next year when she finishes year 12. IPv6 is 7 months
> > older than she is.
> >=20
> > Some of us have been running IPv6 in production for over a decade
> > now and developing products that support IPv6 even longer.
> >=20
> > We have had 17 years to build up a universal IPv6 network. It
> > should have been done by now.
> >=20
> > Mark
> >=20
> >> --
> >> Matthew Newton, Ph.D. <mcn4@le.ac.uk>
> >>=20
> >> Systems Specialist, Infrastructure Services, I.T. Services,
> >> University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom
> >>=20
> >> For IT help contact helpdesk extn. 2253, <ithelp@le.ac.uk>
> > --
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
> >=20
>=20
--Sig_/GV/s6.FIQIZYIxxGV7eEZD7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iD8DBQFWDsg+ONJouYHZZesRAsrLAJ0WxYd7TaGIhA2FgUiIgBvvLUJPbACfXzxm
D+1FWiB96qF6xAGogz54mME=
=WTdK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Sig_/GV/s6.FIQIZYIxxGV7eEZD7--
