On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> >> sth...@nethelp.no writes: >> >>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need >>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the >>> same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument. >>> >>> We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change >>> this. >> >> If we were to give a /48 to every human on the face of the planet, we >> would use about .000025 of the total available IPv6 address space. >> >> You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our >> children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have >> 99.99999% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry >> 99.9975% that might have been their inheritance were it not for your >> efforts. Bravo! >> > > It makes a bigger difference if everyone starts using 6RD - to give out a /48 > effectively > requires a /16, and the number of /16s is by no means approximately > infinite. > That is why the AC chose to allow for a /56 per end-site in the transitional technology policy (6rd is a transitional technology) and why we call for them to be issued from a distinct prefix separate from native IPv6 deployments.
In this way, 6rd can be deployed sooner rather than later, but, we have the ability to move forward to a cleaner native IPv6 deployment and deprecate 6rd when it is no longer needed. Owen