Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:33:16 -0700

On Aug 11, 2011 5:25 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote:


On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:


On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:


On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:


On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet
deployment
towards liberal enough allocations to avoid such disability for the
future.


I see the lack of agreement on whether /48 or /56 or /60 is good for a
home network to be a positive thing.

As long as there's no firm consensus, router vendors will have to
implement
features which don't make silly hard-coded assumptions.

Yes and no. In terms of potential innovations, if enough of the market
chooses
/60, they will hard code the assumption that they cannot count on more
than
a /60 being available into their development process regardless of what
gets into the router. Sure, they won't be able to assume you can't get
a /48,
but, they also won't necessarily implement features that would take
advantage
of a /48.


Abundance doesn't drive innovations.  Scarcity does.  IPv6 does not have
a scarcity issue.  I assert that IPv6 addressing is not going to now or ever
do anything particularly innovative that can't be done better at other, more
relevant, layers.


Abundance won't drive innovation, but, scarcity can block it.

If enough providers limit their residential customers to /60s, then, that
will become the defining limit to which vendors implement.

The time for arguing about arbitrary things that make no difference to
the end customers has passed.  The navel gazing must cease and we must move
forward on IPv6 to the home rather than continuing the confusion about this
and other IPv6 arbitrary bit obsession stuff.


On that I believe we are in complete agreement. Let's deploy IPv6 to end
users and give them /48s and move on.

We need to stop spending our time on rearranging the Titanic's
deckchairs and get the <profanity> on with stopping the crashing into the
iceberg by providing clear leadership on getting IPv6 to the masses to
enable their APPLICATIONS and EXPERIENCE without the impending doom of IPv4
CGN.


Again, no argument.

My name is Matthew, I HAVE given my customers the ability to get IPv6
and I don't give a flying one about the prefix length, I care about getting
ANY prefix to the end users so they can use it and solve the issues at their
end.  I AM enabling innovation just by doing that.


My name is Owen. I work for an ISP that gives IPv6 to our customers and
anyone else who cares to connect.

We care about prefix length because we believe it will impact innovation
for many years.

Yes, getting something to end users is more important than how big of a
prefix we give them. On that, MMC and I are in complete agreement.

However, there are choices to be made in how we do it and giving out /48s
costs virtually nothing and yields real potential benefits. There
is no meaningful advantage to placing arbitrary limits below /48 on
residential customers.


I agree that this debate  is confusing people and will not be solved here.
Let's move on to a more productive topic. There is more than one way to
deploy ipv6. Do what's right for your own users and network.

Cb
Owen




  By Date           By Thread  

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