[address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Wed Dec 7 20:02:41 CET 2005
quite sure there was a discussion about this some months back and most people could agree on that a /56, maybe even /52 was a better size than /48. But maybe it was on ipv6-wg at ripe.net ? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote: > leo vegoda wrote: > > [ Cut from the end, to reply on the former thread, > replyers might want to snip this part ] > > > On 6 Dec 2005, at 11:55, Tim Chown wrote: > >> Is this the > >> way it's meant to be, or should the ISP owning the /32 only need to > >> report usage when asking for more space itself? > > > > I think someone else mentioned that a sub-allocation would have worked > > quite nicely in a case like this. It's worth noting that the current > > policy does not require an LIR to get approval before making a > > sub-allocation of any size. > > It's also the way SixXS gets assigned a prefix, usually a /40, for a PoP > from an ISP to be used for that ISP's PoP and manages this for that ISP, > allocating toward endusers. One could see this as if one is 'outsourcing > tunneled IPv6 end-user connectivity'. > > > [ New Thread ] > > > On 6 Dec 2005, at 11:55, Tim Chown wrote: > <SNIP> > >> We noted one knockon effect of RIPE policy. I don't know the full > >> details, but essentially for a tunnel broker service we wanted to offer > >> a /48 to end sites out of an existing /32, but were unable to do so > >> because the 'paperwork' to be sent on to RIPE-NCC for each /48 was needed > >> in advance for the ISP owning the /32 to allocate a (say) /40 to the > >> broker service, and that added a notable hurdle. So we ended up using > >> a /48 for the broker and allocating /56 and /64 blocks. > > /56's are most likely enough for most 'home end-site'. A single /56 > provides 2^(64-56 = 8) = 256 /64's. > > Let's introduce some terms: > > end-site: a location where IP connectivity is delivered and managed by a > single "IT/IS staff"/person. > ISP: organization that provides connectivity to end-site. > > Then we get two types of endsites: > > 'home end-site': a location (residence) where living > (fun,sleeping,eating) is the prime objective. > > 'work end-site': a location where work is the prime objective and no > sleeping is done. > > Of course there are a couple of nice things like hotels or resthouses, > but those are delivering work to let the people live there, people there > are being serviced to get living conditions (internet is a a requirement > for that don't you think? :) etc. Another one could be home-workers. > Maybe the city planning could determine it better, in many buildings you > are not allowed to spend the night as they where not planned to be used > for that. > > > Currently both kinds of end-sites get /48's. For the work end-site the > /48 should suffice all those sites as defined by the current policy. > > For home end-sites I believe that a /48 really is way too much. > I have to see, let alone dream up, a home where even 25 separate > networks would be used. Personally(*) I even ditched the routed network > thing completely even though I effectively could setup at least 4 links, > separately routed, thus 4x /64. Bridging seemed much easier in my case. > I personally don't home users ever go over the 256 /64's, thus a /56 > should be sufficient. Of course future might change but still. Routing > implies that people would configure it or that it would be autonomicly > configured which is not available yet either. Prefix Delegation might > work, but on 256 levels? > > There where before a couple of other people noting the change of HD > ratio, though I haven't seen much about that discussion recently, Tim's > note above reminded me of it. In SixXS we typically use a /40 for a PoP, > after 255 subnets (the first /48 is for tunnels) this assignment is > full. In Tim's case with the same amount of users he will only use a > single /48, which is 1/256th of what we just "burned". As noted above I > personally believe that a /48 for 'work' sites is good. They can then > always easily move between sites, and this will for certain be enough > for 99.99% (or so) of the endsites that fall in this category. For a > home-site situation a full /48 is IMHO really overkill, as noted above. > > One of the reasons for saying 'all endsites a /48' was that all ISP's > would give everybody a /48, renumbering would then not involve > replanning onces network because one didn't get enough IP space. > Creating a difference for home and work sites could only cause a problem > when a work site becomes a home site, but I don't see that happening. > Home to work, in case that happens, would get more address space at that > point, thus that is not an issue either (except for the renumbering but > let's not think about that, that is a different ballpark ;) > > > Is it maybe time to look at this /48 policy and change it in the > direction of the above that home endsites get a /56 instead of a full > blown /48 which they will never use. Or do people think that it is fine > and that we should not bother here at all? > > Greets, > Jeroen > > * = http://unfix.org/~jeroen/network/ in case one is wondering. > > -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]