[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Jørgen Hovland [mailto:jorgen@hovland.cx] wrote:

> > Haesu wrote:
> >
> > > I wanna see a single home user who will actually *use* even
> > > 50% of 18446744073709551616 addresses.
> >
> > I do, as I got two subnets here:
> > 2 * (2^64) = 36893488147419103232 IP's in use.
> 
> I'm sure he meant ip addresses in use, not putting a /64 net on your
> interface.

As the RFC's uses a /64 per link that is the usage.
If there is one device or 10000. If there is 1 user using
1000 devices or 1000 users using 1 device each.

> > And I can plugin *any* apparatus in both my wired and
> > my wireless network and tadaaaaaa it WORKS, global 
> connectivity!!!!!! :)
> >
> %> Tim Chown wrote:
> %>It is the smallest mainly because of stateless autoconif requiring /64 (see
> %>RFC2462).   Stateless autoconf requires this.
> 
> Not trying to start a huge discussion, but:
> DHCP does the same thing with a smaller prefix, and also gives you the
> correct dns-settings and/or bootp-options ++.

Ofcourse you could do that, but when you allocate say 10 IP's
to your kitchen, and suddenly that new toaster also becomes IPv6
enabled, are you going to call your ISP because you need 1 extra IP?

Ofcourse it could all be more conservative, 255 IP's per link
_could_ be enough but what if you run out? Renumber???

And yes you want to control your toaster from that system next
to your bed to make sure your bread is done when you get downstairs.

Think into the future, not what happened in the 80's.

> Since you obviously think you can get 2^64 devices on a
> single lan, dhcp can reject new devices an ip
> address if there are none availible.

Apparently you assume that I think of that, but if you
read correctly what I noted below on giving every room
in a house a seperate subnet you should realize that
is absolutely not what I meant.

> > > 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.
> >
> > You are assuming IPv4 style addressing, don't think like that.
> > There are 65535 subnets per endsite.
> >
> >
> > You have to realize that in the future it might be that a
> > house gets totally routed, eg subnets for:
> >  - the kitchen
> >  - the living room
> >  - the first floor
> >  - the second floor
> >  - the toilet
> >  - the molly's room
> >  - the johnny's room
> >  - ...
> 
> I know by now how much you love saving bandwidth, Jeroen.

Do I love to save bandwidth? Cool where did you get that assumption?
I said *PAY* for bandwidth, which is what every ISP is doing too.

Grossly use the IP's, there is enough in IPv6.
And grossly use the bandwidth, the user is paying.

> I have been
> thinking a bit about that:
> IPv6 is 128 bits and IPv4 32.
> If we used an "ipv4-stylish" allocation plan for ipv6, and 
> dropped the extra bits we saved by not wasting excessive space,
> how much money would your company save ?

Why would they want to save money?
They want connectivity, if they want to save money then they
should get into a deal for cheaper transit/upstreams.

> Lets say we save 64 bits:
> Thats 8 bytes per packet.
> 256000 pps gives 2048kb per second ~ 20mbit = 800-5000++€ month

Which is perfectly accountable and thus payable by the users.
Why do you care how much traffic they send and receive?
More traffic means more money for the ISP, being you.

In the Netherlands ISP's have a "download cap", most other
ISP's in the world have that too I heared. This "cap" is in
place as that is the border at which the ISP *earns* money.
If you do more traffic... those users *pay* more, perfect! :)

If they are able to hook up more equipment they will
start using it more and more and more... getting you
more and more money because they are using more bandwidth.

Again Economics 101.

> > Don't think in IPv4 style, preservative, allocation, please...
> 
> If we did, you could get 20mbit free.
> But we aren't, so just ignore this.

Ignore your idea of 'saving bandwidth' or your odd perception
of why IPv6 exists?

Before anyone thinks.. nothing personal...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP5qkaCmqKFIzPnwjEQKAKQCeJDrtXm4s6m3Pas63ZwiX7BVfL08AoKVB
aD7qfe4fBdGgAJCPtFOUvhKk
=qw+Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----