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

Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> writes:

> 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?

as Leo pointed out: Work the numbers.  Then think about 4000::/3,
6000::/3, 8000::/3, a000::/3, c000::/3.

>> 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.

I'm not sure if I get what you mean.  But if you relate to the IETF
homenet WG: From what I've seen they have very limited understanding of
microcontrollers and apparently keep forgetting about their grandma (or
whatever other archetypical non-tech end user).

> [...]
> 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 :-)

What do you mean by "net-prefix" and "LAN-prefix"???

>>> * 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.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, anything but a /64 as subnet
prefix length violates RFC 4291.  The problem is yours.

>>> * 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.

Sorry, I really don't understand what you try to say here.

>>> * 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.

???


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
			 Business Grade IPv6
		    Consulting, Training, Projects

Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform.        http://www.stepladder-it.com/