This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Thu Mar 20 17:18:15 CET 2008
Bill, [ Apologies for the following rant... ] On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:38:50PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 12:18:52PM -0000, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > > Many entities will have no use for the /56 you're planning on > > > giving them. > > > > In general, I agree with those who oppose this proposal. But > > another problem with the proposal is that it will lead many > > organizations to design their IPv6 network based on a /56 rather > > than a /48 which is more normal. Organizations really should think > > about how they structure their IPv6 network and only squeeze it > > into a /56 if they need to. > > "normal" is a very odd way to couch this argument. > why not /35 & /32, or the /56 & /64... > > pragmatically, a network operator would be working > in the /88 to /110 space. the massive waste in > delegated and unused/unusable space is almost entirely > the result of protocol designers who had little or no > network operational experience. > > IPv6 - 96 more bits, No Magic. I was a fly on the wall in one of the early discussions where /48 was presented as a recommendation (just when I was starting with this Internet stuff, done in a small circle of interested folks). One assertion was that "allocations must be on byte boundaries" - the reason given was hardware optimization. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now. But the overriding idea was that it *must* be the same size for everyone, otherwise someone might charge more for a larger block, or simply not offer the same size. So people might end up either with a smaller block than they need, or migrate from a larger to a smaller network and not want to renumber. Which means they might use NAT. So, as far as I can tell, the "one size fits all" idea is an attempt to further the IETF anti-NAT jihad, and has nothing to do with anyone's operational needs. :-( -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]