[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Dan Reeder]

I'm not sure where things went awry but i've got this feeling that I've been
included in this "charge per ip" lameness.

The problem is that, perhaps because some of us have had to live under the
strong arm of apnic, that the tendency to want to conserve addressing is a
bit of a habit. Personally whenever I see things like /48s being given to
users left right and center I get reminded of the consequences of Stanford
being given a v4 /8 way back in the early days. It just reeks of
wastefulness. Just because we can, and just because some (antiquated?)
documents say so, does that mean we should?

yes most of us will agree that a /48 being given to a 17 year old for use on
his 3-pc lan, but then why is a /64 acceptable? Is the ammount of addresses
included in a /64 really different to a /48 when it comes to practical
operational use?
To me, the whole problem is a bit of a "chicken and egg" cycle. The rfcs and
powers that be say /64 is the minimum primarily because other rfcs have
dictated addressing schemes, and that the autoconfiguration software doesn't
support network prefixes in greater length than /64. But then the
autoconfiguration software developers say they only support  up to /64
beacuse of rfcs!
Why can't someone bite the bullet and just develop a daemon like radvd that
will simply use pretty much any prefix length thrown at it? I've got a /64
on my lan here. If the advertisement software supported it operationally
speaking it would make absolutely ZERO difference if I changed it to /80...
or /112 or even a /120. And I bet it would make almost zero difference to
the majority of the readers on this list (i'm not really talking about ISP
network operations/addressing here though)

I can't help but cringe at the thought of some geek in a few hundred years
time thinking what clowns we all were by greedily taking /64s and /48s for
our kitchens and bedrooms and living rooms and bathrooms.... and I can't
help but think that there will be an IP shortage somewhere in our solar
system similar to what asia pacific is currently suffering under v4.
But ooooh its 128 bits... it'll never run out, especially with properly
monitored and allocated addressing, right fellas? Oh wait. *grumbles
something about /48s assigned to children*

</rant>

Dan Reeder

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?


> Clearly those ISPs that charge for every address, will need to switch the
business model, if they want to win new customers, or even
> keep the existing users !
>
> Charging for every IPv6 address, must be forbidden, hopefully soon by the
RIRs policy.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen@hovland.cx>
> To: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
> Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:56 AM
> Subject: RE: [6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There are ISP's already doing that and there are ISP's totally against
> > it.
> >
> > > So should you. If you have no intention of selling them internet
access
> > > then why call yourself an ISP at all ?
> >
> > There are people who do not feel charging by capacity is the proper way
to
> > do it, but by the ammount of users. There are infact ISP's who do this
> > today.
> >
> > > "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.
> >
> > There's a difference between denying a person extra ip addresses and
> > giving out a billion without asking if the person needs it.
> >
> > Many ISP's charge for extra ip addresses, and they dont do it just
because
> > they have to type in 3 commands on their router. NAT gives a certain
ammount
> > of security for end-users.
> >
> > Joergen Hovland ENK
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6bone mailing list
> > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
> >
>
> **********************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> Presentations and videos on line at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
>