Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all

From: "Roger Jørgensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:57:03 +0200

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, [email-masked] wrote:
<snip>
> LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites.
> All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of .25.
>
> * /64 - Site needing only a single subnet.
> * /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially.
> * /56 - Site with 4-7 subnets initially.
> * /52 - Site with 8-15 subnets initially.
> * /48 - Site with 16+ subnets initially.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Jeroen Massar wrote:
<snip>
>
> * currently, which is why the /56 thing has come up again, which IMHO
> might be a good idea as a /48 is an awful lot that I won't even use at
> home, though a /48 for every end-site is fine by me as it currently is too.

I would say this entire problem is related to the fact that a /48 is a
huge amount of IP addresses and most people have a hard time to
understand why everyone, even end-users (your grandmother or any other
non-technical users) should get this amount. And at the same time it
is expected that most businesses and companys should get the same
size.

This is just asking for trouble because it is just not-logical at all
to have a one size fits all like that.

I know the reasons behind the /48 etc but it just going to cause us
trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the /48 cateogry of
users into two:
- people that can get the current /48 as long as they have more than
ONE subnet
- people that only have ONE subnet, typical home-users (end-users,
including your grandmother), they should get a  /56 or whatever else
bigger than /60 and smaller than /48.

Whatever else criteria we are might use should be possible to
formulate into one sentence, that simple.

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |
[email-masked]          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:21:18 +0200

> to have a one size fits all like that.

Don't forget: one size NEVER fits all.

> bigger than /60 and smaller than /48.

/56 is a really bad size because people will be tempted to think it's  
enough and then run out AFTER they've deployed enough stuff to make  
renumbering hard. So...

> formulate into one sentence, that simple.

In my opinion, we should give a /48 to everyone who wants one, no  
questions asked. Everyone else should get a /60. /60 is a good  
balance between wasting address space, standardizing on a fixed size  
that works well for 99% of all users and getting people to go to a  
larger block before they've painted themselves into a corner too much.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:00:54 +0100

> I know the reasons behind the /48 etc but it just going to 
> cause us trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the 
> /48 cateogry of users into two:
> - people that can get the current /48 as long as they have 
> more than ONE subnet
> - people that only have ONE subnet, typical home-users 
> (end-users, including your grandmother), they should get a  
> /56 or whatever else bigger than /60 and smaller than /48.

ARIN already has done something like that but the /56 is not for sites
with ONE subnet because IPv6 already defines /64 for that. Instead they
define /56 as the right size for sites expected to need only a few
subnets over the next 5 years. This came about due to requests for a
smaller assignment size for consumer customer, i.e. individual homes and
apartments.

During the discussion it became clear that even if the majority of homes
today only have one subnet, this is likely to change as more categories
of networkable device become available.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: "Roger Jørgensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:22:08 +0200

> of networkable device become available.

I am fully aware of that it will very likely be more than one subnet at some
point, that is why the last paragraph was included. Anyway, the important
point is that we probably should have two different type of end-users, big
and small. Maybe something along what Iljitsch van Beijnum suggested,
/60 (or whatever number) by default and /48 to everyone that requested it
without question it.

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:16:31 -0700

Why do I need more bits to support more subnets?

Since my IPv6 addresses are going to be assigned via DHCP and since I have not the slightest intention of using the MAC address as the low order bits that appear on the Internet proper, I don't see why I would be requiring more than 2^32 devices in my home within the next 20 years, nor for that matter can I imagine how I could usefully employ more than 2^16 different subnets.

And since an ARIN initial allocation can always be extended if by chance I do run out I don't see the problem.

An IPv6 network is not like an IPv4 network, there are no static IP allocations, the network can renumber at any time.

Being parsimonious in address allocations helps to constrain the size of router tables. I presume that the registries will issue contiguous allocations as a matter of preference. Router manufacturers will therefore be able to employ compression techniques to reduce the size of the tables, unless of course some toerag has patented the obvious idea.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 6:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all
> 
> > trouble to keep it like that, we should divide the
> more than 
> > including your grandmother), they should get a
> ARIN already has done something like that but the /56 is not 
> for sites with ONE subnet because IPv6 already defines /64 
> for that. Instead they define /56 as the right size for sites 
> expected to need only a few subnets over the next 5 years. 
> This came about due to requests for a smaller assignment size 
> for consumer customer, i.e. individual homes and apartments.
> 
> During the discussion it became clear that even if the 
> majority of homes today only have one subnet, this is likely 
> to change as more categories of networkable device become available.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
>

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:16:31 -0700

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:09:59 -0400

Roger JÃ¸rgensen wrote:
> and small.
no.  the important point is that all users need to initially have enough
address space that they can attach not just multiple networks, but
multiple layers of networks, at that point.  trying to define the
difference between the two types of end-users is silly.  the reason that
IPv6 has so many bits in its address space is to allow for expansion at
the edges without making addresses variable length.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:19:57 -0400

> Why do I need more bits to support more subnets?
you might not need them.  but the ability for any consumer to buy a
router that will plug into any IPv6 network and automatically obtain a
subnet from its upstream router's /48 is very powerful.   just because
you don't think you'll need to subnet doesn't mean that other people
won't see the need.  we shouldn't constrain the IPv6 network to be
limited to just what you think you'll need.

---

From: "Roger Jørgensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:27:43 +0200

On 8/21/07, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Roger Jørgensen wrote:

You missed the point in my mail completly. My only point was that we probably
need to split the /48 boundry into two, one for big or those who ask
for it, they
will all get a /48. And the standard that everyone get if they dont ask for a
/48.

-- 

Roger Jorgensen           |

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:44:20 -0400

> will all get a /48. And the standard that everyone get if they dont ask for a
I disagree.  There's no technical justification for splitting the /48
boundary, and far too many advantages to standardizing on a single
prefix size for end users.