[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?
Tim Chown
tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:30:34 +0100
Yes, but a home user will want multiple subnets, so the number of addresses
per subnet isn't the issue.
The common RIR policy recommends a /48 per site.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6policy.html
also RFC3177.
If your ISP wishes to apply IPv4 thinking to IPv6 services, I suspect there
will be enough IPv6 ISPs that do give recommended allocations such that
noone will come to you for an IPv6 service when the alternative is better
elsewhere?
Noone will force you to allocate more than a /64. The market will decide
in due course what is the norm.
Tim
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 05:21:43AM -0400, Haesu wrote:
> I understand the need to promote IPv6, and I understand the whole point of IPv6 is to provide fullblown end-to-end connectivity by having more than enough addresses everywhere..
>
> But a /48 for a home network?.. i dunno..
>
> I think /64 for a home network is far more than enough and reasonable.
> Likewise, we hand off /64's to endusers, for those who want more, may be /60 or if requested, /48...
>
> Feel free to correct me if my math is wrong but I believe /64 offs 18446744073709551616 addresses which is far more than the entire space IPv4 technology itself can offer.
>
> I wanna see a single home user who will actually *use* even 50% of 18446744073709551616 addresses.
> Start assigning IP's to every object in your house... i.e. fridge, watch, clock, cell phone, 3g, TV, playstation, computers, lights, microwave, coffeemaker, toilet, etc etc, etc et al. and I doubt even with all that, it comes close to half of 18446744073709551616.
>
> Isn't assigning /48 to end users a bit over excessive you think? Or is the whole point of IPv6 "Let's waste address space until we run out it and panic later on.."?
>
> -hc
>
> --
> Haesu C.
> TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
> Consulting, colocation, web hosting, network design and implementation
> http://www.towardex.com | haesu@towardex.com
> Cell: (978)394-2867 | Office: (978)263-3399 Ext. 170
> Fax: (978)263-0033 | POC: HAESU-ARIN
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:14:37AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > As an ISP you can allocate whatever you like.
> >
> > There will be enough ISPs offering homes /48's and certainly /64's that
> > those that offer a /126 will simply lose business to the more forward
> > looking suppliers.
> >
> > Customers who think NAT=security can continue to use IPv4. Noone is forcing
> > them to use IPv6.
> >
> > Yes I do think every home LAN should get a /48, and a static one. That
> > means the ISP needs a lot more than a /32 though.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:30:45AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote:
> > > I think you've misinterpreted his comments Jeroen
> > > To me it merely meant a /126 ("single user endpoint") as a means to reach a
> > > customer's /48 or /64 prefix. That seems perfectly acceptable for standard
> > > single-homed subnets. There's no intention of things becomming like NAT...
> > > its just intended to be the equivilant of ipv4 /30s
> > > Of course you'd increase it to perhaps /112 if the customer wanted their
> > > subnet to be multihomed, or perhaps use the existing /126 with a new /126.
> > >
> > > It's not that we dont get the subject, indeed I think we do - its just that
> > > goign to extremes such as saying /64s MUST be used for ptp links because an
> > > RFC says so seems a little excessive. Certianly from a tunnel broker's
> > > perspective we'd prefer to assign something quite small (/127s as we've been
> > > doing - that may change to /126s or /112s after this thread) for the ptp
> > > tunnelling, and then a larger block eg /64 or /48 for their own LAN routing.
> > >
> > > But what happens when you do have a single user without a LAN of their own
> > > wanting ipv6 access? Assigning a /64 would not be of any more benefit to
> > > them over assigning a /128. Or do you reckon every user in the world (eg
> > > dialup, home dsl) should be assigned a /64 via something like PPP in the off
> > > chance they do want to some subnetting?
> > >
> > > Dan Reeder
> > > tb.ipv6.net.au
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
> > > To: "'J?rgen Hovland'" <jorgen@hovland.cx>; "'Pekka Savola'"
> > > <pekkas@netcore.fi>; "'Gert Doering'" <gert@space.net>
> > > Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:12 AM
> > > Subject: RE: [6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > >
> > > > J?rgen Hovland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'll give it a try.
> > > > > "Anonymous P2P-connections"
> > > > > If you use a /64 and give the peer an ip address, you have no
> > > > > guarantee it will be using that address, or only that address, because
> > > you
> > > > > allocated the whole /64.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you stick to IPv4 and NAT. And no I don't mean that sarcastic.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to sell 'single-user' products then count their
> > > > bandwidth usage. Or are you getting your IP's from your transit provider?
> > > > Transit providers charge you for bandwidth consumption.
> > > > So should you. If you have no intention of selling them internet access
> > > > then why call yourself an ISP at all ?
> > > >
> > > > "single-user products" as you call it are the biggest reasons why
> > > > we have those awfull NAT's today. And how many users are behind
> > > > that NAT even though you just gave them 1 IPv4 address? LOTS.
> > > >
> > > > > >The standard *is* /64 (the RFC says so). Just to clarify.
> > > > >
> > > > > RFC's are voidable when the majority says so.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest you stay away from IPv6 as you don't have any intention
> > > > of using it for the biggest reason: End to End connectivity.
> > > >
> > > > Greets,
> > > > Jeroen
> > > >
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > > Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
> > > > Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
> > > >
> > > > iQA/AwUBP5mjyimqKFIzPnwjEQJh0ACgqwnnDvq7+GNXUJrD+YF09+hRZ3MAn3J3
> > > > SradMGIvvzzigNYLni4vF04n
> > > > =2WmW
> > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 6bone mailing list
> > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 6bone mailing list
> > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6bone mailing list
> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone