[bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, William Waites <wwaites at tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> I've started writing here:
>
>     https://pad.okfn.org/p/bcop-small-ipv6
>
> Today, a couple of paragraphs about the intended audience before
> getting into the meat of it.

It's a good start, but could you rewrite the part on "Address Allocation"

   ".... ipv6 not so different (only forget scarcity and use /64 by
default and /56 or /48 if requested"



I guess the allocation should be replaced with assignment toward
end-users as a starter, then the next thing is the size you mention.

Giving a /64 toward end-users will break many things, it will break
homenet design (IETF homenet) and not to forget it's against the
original intention when we relaxed the /48-for-everyone. Probably
biggest clue for this is the HD-Ratio in
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 "In IPv6, "utilisation" is only
measured in terms of the bits to the left of the efficiency
measurement unit (/56)."


Replace it with something along this

"by default give everyone a /56, on request a /48". It is really that simple.



some background on the /56 size. Sometime before 2005 a discussion
started if /48 for everyone was too strict, not so much about wasteful
but more than anyone ever would need. After some back and forth RIPE
changed it in 2005, the earliest document I found was 2005-08.
I've tried to fill a /48 on just my own stuff in many ways but it's
almost impossible, a /56 on the other hand is possible to fill but
it's hard. I did tunnels between several machines I own/control, vpn
so I could inside my own network, each service and LAN that got a /64
etc.

It is documented quite a few more places than just in RIPE documents.
The original intention was that we thought /56 was the right and
recommended (lower cases) sizes for regular end-users. /48 was the
right size for bigger end-users like enterprises.
Over the years through rewrites it seems to have been relaxes so it's
not that easy to see that it was ment as a recommanded (lower cases)
on assigments sizes. I guess the reason for it being lower case is
that none can dictate how an ISP/or anyone should do their assigment
of the address space, only thing was to make an recommendation.


Here is a few documents that mention the /56

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-why64/?include_text=1
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no