On Wed, 16 May 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
> | 2) Apparently IAB/IESG proposal was not taken too seriously
> | * With /48 to end-users, the address space would be exhausted;
> | this would be only 16 (not really used in assignments) + IPv4 space.
>
> Huh?
>
> With allocations at /48, the address space available to be allocated is
> 64K times as big as the entire IPv4 address space, and the allocation is
> done in units of 1 regardless of how big the organisation is (at least
> until it gets VERY huge indeed - bigger than needed to justify a /8 in IPv4
> space - just for the organisation itself, we're not talking about clients
> of ISPs here - then it can get 2...)
The first 2^16, and more, bits are not being used at the moment, but
that's not the point; they will be when needed.
The problem is that if dialups, adsl's etc. should be given /48, but the
organization is allocated one /48, how do you proceed? Take for example
universities offering dialup, or companies doing it for the personnel; you
can't argue that these are always a part of the infrastructure, and should
be given /64.
>From there, we go to a scenario where organization needs /48 for itself
and N * /48 (e.g. /35) for other connectivity. However, please note that
e.g. 48-35 bits is not that much; organizations doing this would be
needing reallocations after reallocations of new addresses.
This might lead to an increased size of routing tables as you
might not be able to aggregate the prefixes properly.
And from Thomas Narten's mail:
> Please read all of draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing-recommendations-00.txt
> (or wait a day or to for -01) before jumping to conclusions. I believe
> all of your issues are discussed there in detail.
Ah, thanks for the pointer. This does clarify the recommendation a bit.
This states a lot more clearly that the default, unless otherwise stated,
should be /48. The RIPE presentation, IMO, reverses this especially for
dial-ups.
The paper did not discuss the effect of allocating /48's and /35's now
(and probably /29..36 in the future) on the routing table sizes; was this
deemed a non-issue?
You can't fit _that_ many /48's in a /35 that are being allocated now.
That might cause aggregation fragmentation as more address space is being
asked from RIR's.
Perhaps I'm looking a bit too far in the future, imagining every
10th/100th dialup/DSL/etc. user might use IPv6 and want /48; current
/35 assignment policy would not be enough for that.
Who knows. :-)
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
