Sent from my iPad

On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:56, Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Skeeve,

Could you please relay my query to the APNIC-TALK list ? I dont have the email address for them.
I am willing to participate on any current forum which discusses the address assignment recommendations.

In my opinion, stateless autoconfiguration is little justification (to start assigning /64s for end-customers) when it comes to the issue of address exhaustion which was the main driver to come up with a 128 bit address space. If we start assigning /64s to end-customers right from day-zero, we are effectively halving the whole 128 bit address space and making all the vital /64s unavailable for use in future.


You have a fundamental math error above.

2^128 is not 2^64 * 2.  It is 2^64 * 2^64.

It might also help to review the history of how we arrived at 128 bits. The original plan was to go to 64 bit addresses.  The additional 64 bits were added solely because of the idea of auto configuration, so, in reality, it's not using up half the bits for host addressing so much as we doubled the address size to accommodate auto configuration.

While I do not subscribe to the theory that IPv6 address space is infinite, I do believe that it is more than adequate to survive more than 50 years of liberal allocation and that there are very real benefits to liberal sparse allocations.

Let's try liberal allocations as designed for a little while. If we burn through 20 /12s at the RIR level in less than 15 years, then I will be the first to admit we should consider les liberal a location policy. At that point, we will still have 492 /12s in the first 1/8th of the address space available.

We can always ask vendors to modify the stateless autoconfiguration algorithm and look into slightly more conservative addressing scheme.


To what possible benefit?


And we all know how difficult it is to reclaim address spaces from customers once they have deployed them.

We are talking about assigning 2^64 addresses to potentially small-scale customers ?? I don't understand the justification there.

Randy Bush: Yes I have read RFC 6177 and I am mainly concerned about its recommendations of assigning /64s - some ISPs in Australia are now taking these recommendations and assigning even residential edge customers with a /64 IPv6 space (I found this out after participating in AUS-NOG conference and was alarmed by this).


That is most unfortunate. A customer should have the ability to run multiple /64 subnets. A single /64 is far too limiting. While I still believe that /48 is preferable, i cannot see any legitimate justification for assigning less than a /56 to any end site.

Owen

I can be reached on the following:

Usman Latif
Senior Network Engineer
Uecomm (Singtel-Optus Limited)
Phone: +61 2 8085 3212
Email: ulatif@uecomm.com.au
Sydney, Australia


regards
Usman Latif



From: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve@eintellego.net>
To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>; "sig-policy@lists.apnic.net" <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses

Hi Usman,

This is a good question and worth discussing.  But, it should be discussed in perhaps the apnic-talk list, not the sig-policy list, which is for policy related discussion.

Let's take it over there, and let the discussion begin!

…Skeeve

APNIC Sig-Policy Co-Chair
 
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia

--
eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call
- Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei

On 16/09/11 6:09 PM, "Usman Latif" <osmankh@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ??
In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space.

Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking?

IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough.


regards
Usman
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy


*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy