[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 and embedded systems was: Re: 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Sun Oct 27 16:12:14 CET 2013
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote: > Hi Roger and list, > > On Fri, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> writes: <snip> >> 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. We'll have bigger problems, and other problems in 10years time. We have probably start to use more than the 2000::/3 space for one thing. That might change the game? I do think /56 is fine for most thing, really for most thing. But if someone want to use /48 just to be sure. Fine let them do that. If a user want a /48 instead of /56, then the operators actually _should_ hand it out. <snip> >> But you have to be big to get into that trouble. > > I don't see any reason why size has to do with it. The problem is more > of a ratio between size and allocated address space---and the technical > knowledge around. (And no, unlike somebody else on this list I don't > believe it feasible for a consumer to call in a CCIE every time they > need some networked deviced hooked up.) are work ongoing elsewhere that maybe can fix that connect-anything-anyway-you-like problem we've always had. But that's not a policy question. >> 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... > > If /64 is given up, all sorts of shit will happen. It has been part of > the specs for long enough that a number of implementations will rely on > it. It's not just autoconfiguration, but when it comes to embedded > system/microcontroller implementations, changing that is rather > difficult. > > Additionally, anything that can be (mis-)configured exponentially adds > (or rather, multiplies) to the frustration potential for end users. agree, this /64 is one of the really really good thing. It can be considered a waste of address space but it's a nice division between net-prefix and LAN-prefix :-) <snip> >> * 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. so what? I buy a service, and if the provider support me installing something that break their setup, then it's really their problem. Pain is mine but problem is theirs to fix. >> * 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, so what? I've done worse use of the IPv6 space over the years and _only_ thing that bit me really hard was the /127 problem ages ago. But we got around that to, and it bit me because I did things I wasn't supposed todo:) Again - operators choice of operating their own network. >> * I have tried to use an entire /48 but failed. I tried to build my >> own network with VPN, routings and everything across the different >> servers and routers I have spread around. That /48 was big enough for >> me:) > > Oha. So you have too many machines to fit into a /64 in a single > subnet? No, I had enough of /64 in a /48. I tried to run out of /64's but hadn't enough sites or enough machines. I really tried, even used /52, /56 etc to :-) The operating headache took me way before the address space was empty. Could gone further with automaton but that wasn't the point. >> * I tried to build a big routed, multisite network using a /56, that >> also worked upto a certain size :) > > Sorry, I don't get what you want to say there. a /56 is plenty for most cases. However I was able to run out of available /64 to use before the operating headache took me :-) I think that if an end-user ask for a /48 then the operators _should_ provide you with a /48. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 and embedded systems was: Re: 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]