Mark Smith wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 +0100
Matthew Walster<matt...@walster.org> wrote:
On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band<al...@ripe.net> wrote:
There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
customer a /64 and assign them a /56 or /48 if they request it, routed
to an IP of their choosing.
I estimate that an addressing request will cost the ISP at least 15
minutes of time to process. When a minimum allocation of a /32 contains
16 777 216 /56s, do you really need to create that artificial
addressing cost, eventually passed onto the customer?
Funny how so much concern is given to eliminating the possibility of end
users returning for more space, yet for ISP's we have no real concern
with what will happen when they near depletion of their /32 what with
/48s to some thousands customers, aggregation, churn, what have you.
The effort and cost of that on the organization is hard to predict,
especially as how it may vary from size to size, organization to
organization. Furthermore, everyone else pays with a DFZ slot.
/48 per customer gives the customer as many potential subnets as you
have potential customers.
With more address space than we need, the value we get is addressing
convenience (just like we've had in Ethernet addressing since 1982).
There is no need to make IPv6 addressing artificially precious and as
costly as IPv4 addressing is.
A balance should be struck and for that to happen, weight must be given
to both sides.
Joe
