On 10/02/2015 12:44 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:09:00 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
Likewise, sub-allocations can come into play, where a hoster is
delegated a /48, but then subdivides it for various customers.
So they apply for a /32 and give each customer a /48.
A hoster getting *just* a /48 is about as silly as a hoster
getting a /32 of IPv4 and NAT'ing their customers.
I agree, for a web hosting operation, getting an allocation smaller than
a /32 doesn't make sense.
But...now I ask this question: WHY a /48 per customer? I used to be a
web host guy, and the rule was one IPv4 address per co-location customer
or dedicated-server customer -- maybe two -- and shared-IP HTTP for
those customers hosted on "house" servers with multiple sites on them.
We had a couple of shared-hosting server with 64 IPv4 addresses each to
support SSL sites with customer-provided SSL certificates..
OLD STYLE
If a customer wanted more than one IPv4 address, he had to justify it so
we could copy the justification to our ARIN paperwork. A /24 was right
out, because the *only* people requesting that much IPv4 space were
spammers.
The largest legit co-location IPv4 customer allocation, because he had
enough servers in his cage and sufficient justification to warrant it,
was a /26 . Which I SWIPped. Which I treated as a completely separate
subnet. Which was on its own VLAN. Which used separate 10base-T
Ethernet interfaces on my edge routers to provide hard flow control and
traffic monitoring.
THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW
I can see, in shared hosting, where each customer gets one IPv6 address
to support HTTPS "properly". Each physical server typically hosts
300-400 web sites comfortably, so assigning a /112 to each of those
servers appears to make sense. This is particularly true now that there
is a push for "https everywhere".
Web hosting isn't going to be a downstream link for IoT, so the need for
"massive" amounts of IPv6 addressing space is simply not there.
