I have no problems with ISPs giving out /48s to residential subscribers. Neither do I mind if they give out /56s. That still gives every residential customer 256 /64 subnets.
I don't see this as something that needs to become a standard. Those end-users who want more can ask for more fro their ISP whenever the need arises. If there is a market for selling those larger prefixes to end users, that's free enterprise, which I also support. I don't think it's wise to delegate by rule or convention that the entire first 1/8th of IPv6 space should be delegated in /48s. You see this as not a huge deal. To me, 12.5% is a huge deal. I appreciate your offer to give your services away for free to remedy any problems the /3 bolus creates. But as history has shown, neither of us is likely to be in circulation -- or even alive -- when a problem would occur. -mel beckman > On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:30 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > You don’t think holding nearly 7/8ths of the address space in reserve for a > future addressing policy is adequate judiciuosness? > > The IPv4 /8s constituted 1/2 of the address space. The /16s another 1/4, and > the /24s an additional 1/8th at the time. > Overall, that was 7/8ths of the address space assigned to unicast and 9/16ths > allocated if you included multicast. > > In IPv6, we have 1/8th set aside for unicast, 1/256th for multicast, 1/256th > for ULA, 1/1024th for link-local, and > a couple of infinitesimal fractions set aside for other things like > localhost, IPV6_ADDR_ANY, etc. > > As I said, let’s be liberal as designed with the first /3. If I’m wrong and > you can prove it in my remaining lifetime, I will happily > help you develop more restrictive allocation policy for the remaining 3/4 > while the second /3 is used to continue growing the > IPv6 internet. > > Whatever unexpected thing causes us to finish off the first /3 likely won’t > burn through the second /3 before we can > respond with new policy. We still have almost 3/4 of the address space > available for more restrictive allocations. > > Frankly, I bet about 1/8th of the IPv4 address space probably is in the hands > of the top 64 organizations. Maybe more. > > In this case, 1/8th of the address space will more than cover the entire > known need many many many times over, even > with very liberal allocations. > > Owen > >> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:13 , Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> By the same token, who 30 years ago would have said there was anything wrong >> with giving single companies very liberal /8 allocations? Companies that for >> the most part wasted that space, leading to a faster exhaustion of IPv4 >> addresses. History cuts both ways. >> >> I think it's reasonable to be at least somewhat judicious with our spanking >> new IPv6 pool. That's not IPv4-think. That's just reasonable caution. >> >> We can always be more generous later. >> >> -mel beckman >> >>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >>> >>> 30 years ago, if you’d told anyone that EVERYONE would be using the >>> internet 30 years >>> ago, they would have looked at you like you were stark raving mad. >>> >>> If you asked anyone 30 years ago “will 4 billion internet addresses be >>> enough if everyone >>> ends up using the internet?”, they all would have told you “no way.”. >>> >>> I will again repeat… Let’s try liberal allocations until we use up the >>> first /3. I bet we don’t >>> finish that before we hit other scaling limits of IPv6. >>> >>> If I’m wrong and we burn through the first /3 while I am still alive, I >>> will happily help you >>> get more restrictive policy for the remaining 3/4 of the IPv6 address space >>> while we >>> continue to burn through the second /3 as the policy is developed. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 14, 2015, at 06:23 , George Metz <george.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> That's all well and good Owen, and the math is compelling, but 30 years >>>> ago if you'd told anyone that we'd go through all four billion IPv4 >>>> addresses in anyone's lifetime, they'd have looked at you like you were >>>> stark raving mad. That's what's really got most of the people who want >>>> (dare I say more sane?) more restrictive allocations to be the default >>>> concerned; 30 years ago the math for how long IPv4 would last would have >>>> been compelling as well, which is why we have the entire Class E block >>>> just unusable and large blocks of IP address space that people were handed >>>> for no particular reason than it sounded like a good idea at the time. >>>> >>>> It's always easier to be prudent from the get-go than it is to rein in the >>>> insanity at a later date. Just because we can't imagine a world where IPv6 >>>> depletion is possible doesn't mean it can't exist, and exist far sooner >>>> than one might expect. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com >>>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>>> How so? >>>> >>>> There are 8192 /16s in the current /3. >>>> >>>> ISPs with that many pops at 5,000,000 end-sites per POP, even assuming 32 >>>> end-sites per person >>>> can’t really be all that many… >>>> >>>> >>>> 25 POPS at 5,000,000 end-sites each is 125,000,000 end-sites per ISP. >>>> >>>> 7,000,000,000 * 32 = 224,000,000,000 / 125,000,000 = 1,792 total /16s >>>> consumed. >>>> >>>> Really, if we burn through all 8,192 of them in less than 50 years and I’m >>>> still alive >>>> when we do, I’ll help you promote more restrictive policy to be enacted >>>> while we >>>> burn through the second /3. That’ll still leave us 75% of the address >>>> space to work >>>> with on that new policy. >>>> >>>> If you want to look at places where IPv6 is really getting wasted, let’s >>>> talk about >>>> an entire /9 reserved without an RFC to make it usable or it’s partner /9 >>>> with an >>>> RFC to make it mostly useless, but popular among those few remaining NAT >>>> fanboys. Together that constitutes 1/256th of the address space cast off to >>>> waste. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I’m not too worried about the ISPs that can legitimately justify a >>>> /16. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Jul 13, 2015, at 16:16 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@ttec.com >>>>> <mailto:jmai...@ttec.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>>> JimBob’s ISP can apply to ARIN for a /16 >>>>> >>>>> Like I said, very possibly not a good thing for the address space. >
