While there are certainly people that want to differentiate service levels based on prefix length, most of the providers I have talked to have started from an invalid assumption that all they can get is a /32, then dividing that up by their current customer base results in long prefixes. They really do need to flip that over, taking a plan to their RIR for customer-base * planned-prefix-length to get a realistic allocation to begin with.
In any case, the 66nat effort is a solution looking for a problem, but if it does exist it should be based on technical rather than policy issues. CGA is a reason to keep the low order 64 bits intact, and checksum adjustment is reason to have a 16-bit modifier. This combination means that if people really-really-really have to have their hallucinogenic 66nat drug, they have to figure out a way to deal with the policy issues to get a /48. Note: they could just use 6to4 and they are already there... Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Mark Townsley > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:18 AM > To: Marc Blanchet > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [nat66] NAT66 / IPv6 NAT and assumption of /48 > > > My experience is that those brand new to IPv6 (and who don't do some > reading up front) first think of offering a /128, but are quickly > convinced that /64 is the real minimum (which is why I said I had never > seen one "seriously" consider a /128). Then, after some time, they can > be convinced to move the line up to a /56, but it takes a second push - > one that's a little bit harder than the first. Going further, to a /48, > is often a tough sell for residential. > > That's my experience at least, YMMV. I've never actually seen a > residential /128 service, though I have seen /64, /60, /56 and /48. > > - Mark > > Marc Blanchet wrote: > > Mark Townsley a écrit : > > > >> I'm in contact with a lot of broadband providers deploying and > thinking > >> about deploying IPv6, and have never seen one seriously consider > /128. > >> /64, yes. /60 certainly. But never /128. > >> > > > > I'm too "in contact with a lot of broadband providers deploying and > > thinking about deploying IPv6". > > > > and some were first thinking to give a /128 as the "basic service", > even > > after some education on how "IPv6 works"... The possible arrival of > > 6ai/nat66 has already bring back this notion of /128, since it "just > > maps" with their current v4 deployment/billing/OSS/... > > > > note that I don't think /128+nat66-6ai is a good idea, but I would > > certainly be careful claiming that it would not happen or it is not > on > > the design table. > > > > Marc. > > > > > >> - Mark > >> > >> Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: > >> > >>> ... And ISP's could just say "we're only handing out one /128" > because > >>> we're expecting you to deploy NAPT66 - and there are plenty of > vendors > >>> willing to sell NAPT66 boxes... > >>> > >>> - Wes > >>> > >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
