> >> >> My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big >> enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy. There is no shortage >> of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage >> of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a >> /48? But, from my provider's /32, that is only 4 levels at the >> assumed nibble boundary. I think my provider could use another >> two levels. > > If your provide has more than 10,000 customers they should never have gotten > a /32. The braindead notion that everyone needed to rush out and get a /32 > has not helped get IPv6 deployed. The /32 value was the default one for a > startup provider. Every provider with a customer base should have done a plan > for a /48 per customer, then gotten the right size block to start with. Any > provider with a /32 and more than 10k customers needs to do that now and swap > for 'a real block', instead of trying to squeeze their customers into a tiny > block due to their insufficient initial request. > ARIN proposal 121 is seeking to clarify this in the NRPM. I've also submitted a similar proposal to APNIC and expect it to be published shortly and discussed in Hong Kong.
Unfortunately, I won't be in Hong Kong for the discussion, but, I'm going to try and participate remotely. I encourage anyone facing the /32 is not enough problem at the service provider (or anyone else for that matter) to get involved and speak up in favor of proposal 121 and/or the APNIC equivalent. I intend to put forth similar proposals where necessary in the other RIRs as well. Owen
