Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
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.
There's no need to give it a lot of concern because that process is pretty well
understood and not particularly different from the current process in IPv4.
There are a whole lot of organizations who do not view getting IPv4 from
ARIN as particularly easy or well understood. Whether IPv6 requests will
be better or worse for more or less of the population is completely
unpredictable at this time.
My point is that very little concern is being given to them and all of
it to the end user, who all understand how to contact their service
provider to request more service.
When an ISP runs out, they apply for more from either their upstream, or, their
RIR. Just that simple.
When an end user runs out, they apply for more from either their
upstream, or, their RIR. Just that simple.
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.
Yeah, but, the number of DFZ slots consumed by this in IPv6 will be so much
smaller than IPv4 that I really find it hard to take this argument seriously.
Early days yet. And each IPv6 is worth four of IPv4. We are already
proposing doubling the allocation rate for transitional mechanisms.
Additionally, it's not necessarily true due to allocation by bisection.
/48 per customer gives the customer as many potential subnets as you have
potential customers.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
I say it as if it is a curious thing worthy of real consideration
whether we are indeed following the wisest course of action.
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.
And it has. /32 is merely the default minimum allocation to an ISP. Larger
blocks
can be given,
and, now that the RIRs are allocating by bisection, it should even
be possible in most cases for that additional space to be an expansion of the
existing allocation without changing the number of prefixes.
e.g. 2001:db8::/32 could be expanded to 2001:db8::/28
16 times as much address space, same number of DFZ slots.
Owen
Yes, the one saving grace of this system.
Joe
