On 18/04/2020 18:44, Owen DeLong wrote:
...
Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put
into IPv6 for many valid reasons.
You continue to rail against it, yet you’ve provided no reason or basis for
your claim that it is “an exaggeration” or that it is in any way detrimental.
Yes /48 to a site absolutely no problem.
To a residential customers is an truly absurd. /56 or /60 is broadly
fine for this and you can always treat the exceptions and easily give
out a /48 to customers who justify or really have a need of it, like
some corporate customers for instance. But not for all indistinctly.
I am trying not to go too much into this topic because I fear to to
divert from the policy discussion. Yes, in order to discuss this we have
to put up technical considerations and it's fine, but I guess a more
elaborated technical discussion wouldn't be beneficial to this list.
<clip>
In terms of any concerns or fears about running out if we use such an address
allocation policy, consider the following:
1. Current earth population is approximately 7,000,000,000 (7e9).
2. Let’s assume that within the lifetime of IPv6 we are somehow
able to double that population to 14e9.
3. Let’s further assume that each individual resides in a solitary
end site (average density is 2.3 humans per household).
4. Let’s also give each individual a separate /48 for their place
of work and an additional /48 for their share of the various
services and companies they communicate with as well as network
infrastructure they use.
5. If we bake in all of those exaggerated assumptions, we need a
total of 42e9 /48s.
6. There are 2^45 /48s in 2000::/3 (the current IETF/IANA
designated IPv6 GUA pool (which can be expanded several times).
7. 2^25 is 35,184,372,088,832 (more than 35e12).
8. So, in fact, without exhausting the current pool of address
space, we can give every individual on earth 6 /48s and we
still only consume 0.1% of 1/8th of the address space, leaving
99.9% of the current 2000::/3 still available.
I never worry about running out of IPv6 addresses. This isn't really the
issue.
We must use them reasonably and intelligently and as mentioned above
nowadays a /48 for a residential customer is way too much and the vast
majority will not use even a tiny portion of it, even in a near future.
I'd rather the technologies to develop around the usage of a for example
a /56 which are 256 x /64 networks and still a lot for a residential
proposes. Again, if really necessary it's not hard to give out /48 to
someone who justify for *real needs* not for *perhaps in the future*.
Otherwise in a few years someone will start to propose to give out /32
to residential customers because, otherwise this may limit innovation.
Sorry I cannot agree with this reasoning.
Fernando
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
