On Sep 17, 2011, at 3:21 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
Thanks for understanding.
To me it just seems like a crazy idea of assigning a /64 subnet (that can otherwise fulfill requirements of 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts) to a residential CPE which today uses at the max 5-10 IPv4 addresses on their LANs.
Assigning a /64 is crazy... You should not be assigning your residential customers only a single subnet. Ideally, they should receive a /48, but, at an absolute minimum, I would think a /56.
It's not about counting hosts. IPv6 was designed around the idea that counting hosts should be unnecessary and the 64 bits you are now complaining about wasting were added for the purpose of using them in this fashion. If they hadn't been allocated to this purpose, likely IPv6 would have been a 64 bit address rather than a 128 bit address.
I think because we have been working with IPv4 and have been really careful about not wasting IPs due to the limited address space, maybe its that same mindset which makes me uncomfortable looking at multiple /64s going to a single DSL end-customer etc. :)
Yes... You are most definitely suffering from IPv4-think mindset. To deploy IPv6 properly and not in a manner which will detract from the development of better end user technologies, you really need to move beyond the scarcity mindset. As I have said several times. let's try allocating IPv6 as it was intended (/48 per end site regardless
of whether it's residential, commercial, etc.) and if we use up even so much as 20 /12s in less than 50 years, I will accept that we need to consider more conservative
allocation strategies.
This won't create a need to reclaim. The safety valve I am suggesting (at 20 /12s) leaves us with more than 3,564 /12s still in reserve to use with a more conservative allocation policy. (that without invading c000::/3 which is where multicast, link local, etc. are all reserved).
Anyway, next time I am using autoconf and assign a /64 to a residential CPE, I'll just go blind and convince myself not to think about wasting all these addresses....
You shouldn't have to go blind. You should be able to do it by simply recognizing that the design of the protocol is different in this way and that those 64 bits were added for that purpose.
Owen
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Usman Latif <osmankh@yahoo.com>
Cc: APNIC Address Policy SIG <sig-policy@apnic.net>
Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64IPv6 addresses
it is not that i disagree with your arguments. it's just that i lost
the selfsame arguments some years ago. the current generally accepted
'wisdom,' with
little supporting measurement, is that iv6 address space
is effectively infinite and the ipv6 routing table is a very scarce
resource. that this resembles pigs at a trough constructing a barrier
to entry is not a widely held perception.
randy
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy