[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 ]