mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:05:44 -0700
On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Brian Mengel <bmengel () gmail com> wrote:
On the flip side, /56 allows for 16M end-users in your /32 ISP
allocation. After which you can trivially get as many additional /32's
as you want. Is there any reason you want to super-optimize to get
268M end-users squashed in that /32?
Arguably, if you only have one /32, and you ever get 65,536 customers
each with a /48, getting as many /32s as you need should be no problem,
But you might want to give them /56s, so you have more bits to logically
divide those customers by region, or some other criteria to enable
more efficient aggregation.
Policy supports you getting those bits left of the /32 instead now.
Look at ARIN 2011-3 which was adopted and ratified by the board and
is awaiting implementation by staff.
If you like this idea, support APNIC prop 98, too, please.
That's the problem with the RIR's choice of issuing only /32s from which
/48s are to be assigned.
The customer has 80 bits to work with in organizing their hosts.
The /32 is only the default minimum for an ISP. A small ISP can probably work
with 16 bits. Larger ISPs were always expected to get more than a /32.
But the ISP has only 16 bits in a /32 to work with.
Only if they're very small or not very intelligent in their RIR application.
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Doug Barton (Aug 05)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing William Herrin (Aug 06)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Matthew Moyle-Croft (Aug 09)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mohacsi Janos (Aug 09)