[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?
Haesu
haesu@towardex.com
Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:50:03 -0400
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 10:30:34AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> Yes, but a home user will want multiple subnets, so the number of addresses
> per subnet isn't the issue.
Yes that's true. Although /64 shoudl allow them to allocate /80 but that's rather against the standard, and would be just wrong :) as /64 is smallest one should give out due to it being the local site prefix.
> 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.
I'll have to agree.. We are just not sure yet as to how things will turn out in the market, so I guess for now we should go with what RFC recommends.
-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
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone