Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog 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,
also.

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.

Owen

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description:


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault