SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): Limitting based on IP address is not useful (Was: Re: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 7 21:00:33 CEST 2005
Hi, On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > How long do you think this /48 policy will last? I was hoping for > at least 60 years++ so I don't need to have the same discussion > again with IPv8. While I personally dislike /64s and /48s (for some other reasons that do not need discussion here, as there are good reasons for /64 and /48, and I can accept these), your argumentation is still flawed. Everybody that tells me "we will run out of IPv6 address space!!!!" has pretty obviously not done the math - just count how many /48s are there, and then do some estimation on how many people earth can suffice, and how many /48s per person for each of those we have. Out of 2000::/3. *Then* come back and tell me (with a straight face) "we will run out of IPv6 addresses because /48s are such a great waste". [..] > So you are saying that documenting your need of a /48 will be > rejected by future LIRs due to their own address policy and they > will give you a /56 instead because that???s what their policy says? The whole point of the /48s is that you do NOT need to argue with your LIR. You'll *always* get a /48 when changing ISPs, and that's big enough for all but the largest customers. This is why /48s are *good*. (Unless, of course, your network is too large for a /48 - provisions for that case exist). > I don't believe that will happen as long as the RIRs have somewhat > loose policies. ARIN allocates you a netblock and you do whatever > you want with it. With RIPE you need to apply for allocations within > your assigned netblock. You're seriously confused about terminology and about RIPE IPv6 policy. [..] > But what about you document the need of a /40 but will only get a /48 (/47)? Show me the network plan that documents the need for a /40. 16 million independent multiaccess networks ("LAN")??? (There are some, but it's going to be "few"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): Limitting based on IP address is not useful (Was: Re: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]