While some folks will lead us to believe our ability to use up address space is going to decline, and thus IPv6 appears to be an infinite number to them, there are those that prefer to simply acknowledge that IPv6 has yet again, a finite number.
It doesn't hurt to be moderate (not stingy) but it could hurt to be overly generous when utilizing addresses. If we can plan our subnet use with accurate technical aspects and assign according to what is a likely need and room for growth then there shouldn't be any issues with waste or shorting a user. IETF needs to focus on the technical aspect of subnets and write documents that are clear for RIR's to reference. Then RIR's can do their part and write policy that details what is a realistic need and room for growth of a user. Cheers Marla Azinger Frontier Communications ARIN AC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dunn, Jeffrey H. Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 6:05 AM To: Alexandru Petrescu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Sherman, Kurt T.; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E. Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? More to the point, what would a individual household do with Avogadro's number worth of IPv6 addresses (2^80 = 1.2x10^24)? This seems extremely wasteful. Further, a reasonable sized ISP with a couple of million customers would require a /28 or more just for their residential customer base. This sounds like a prescription for address exhaustion. Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 8:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E. Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape... >> >> An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home. >> With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless >> auto-configuration. > > In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape the ISP will assign you a > /48 with plenty of subnetting space. Not sure, FWIW, in the IPv6 ADSL household I live in gives me a /64 and not /48 (see draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt). That's typical for me but I don't know about the other deployed IPv6 ADSL, do they give /64 or shorter prefixes? Alex > In some regions there will be some ISPs who will only assign a /56 to > residential sites, but that still gives you a reasonable amount of > subnetting ability. Under RIR rules, an ISP can justify giving you a > /48 if you ask them for it. > > --Michael Dillon > > ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
