[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?

On 10/27/2013 09:54 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> Hi Roger and list,
>
> On Fri, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> writes:
>
>>   Oct 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Benedikt Stockebrand
>> <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:
>> What I wouldn't want to see however is that some big player gets some 
>> extra address space because they wasted their existing one. Once that 
>> happens, everyone will demand the same. 

that's the second time I read this in this thread. Why would this 
happen? All allocations are subject to RIR policy

>> One way to waste is to give every single customer a /48 when you are
>> really really big. /56 work just fine really, even for techies like me :)
> Sorry, but I disagree on that.  A /56 is fine for today's requirements,
> but if this hype about the "Internet of Things" really takes off and you
> want to put things into different subnets, a /56 may occasionally be a
> problem even for consumer households.  Not today, but think anything
> from ten to fourty years.

40 years from now? Many, more significant changes will probably 
overshadow this. Otherwise, 256 different policies in a home sound just fine

>
>> There was major discussion just to get that /56 into the documents.
>> Upto that point there was /64 pr.LAN, /48 for the rest. Now we're relaxing
>> it even more. Are discussion on moving away from /64's on the wire to...
> It's not just autoconfiguration, but when it comes to embedded
> system/microcontroller implementations, changing that is rather
> difficult.

care to elaborate on that?

>> * For one server running in the cloud I got a /112, that work just fine really.
> ...until you do an upgrade on the server that relies on RFC 4291.
>
>> * Somewhere else I'm using a /50 on the wire, that also work just fine.
> Same issue.  Yes, at least some implementations support that right now,
> but you shouldn't rely on that.  Additionally, for whoever may have to
> run that system further later on you set up some ugly surprise that way.

again, care to elaborate a bit? How's a /50 not compliant with RFC 4291?

> Cheers, Benedikt 

cheers,
Yannis