[ppml] IPv6>>32

--On Friday, May 13, 2005 3:05 PM -0500 Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
wrote:

> Thus spake "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
>> And the policy states that such a situation would be an LIR anyway,
>> as they obviously have at least 200 students (external customers)
>> subscribing to their IP service.  Voila... They get a /32 anyway.
> 
> I agree that's what the letter of the policy states, but I can't imagine
> that's what was intended.
> 
> Assigning a /48 to each student violates simple common sense.  Yes, I know
> there's enough /48s for every human on the planet, but we're going to have
> serious problems down the road if we start allocating a /48 for each host,
> which is the vast majority of cases in a dorm today and for the
> conceivable future.  Burning a /64 per host is bad enough, but I could be
> convinced to accept that if Merit said they liked that idea (I personally
> doubt they do).
> 
I think by default, each student should get a /64.  If, however, the student
expresses need for multiple subnets, then, I think a /48 is exactly what was
intended under the policy.

I'm not making any value judgments at this point as to whether the policy
is good or bad, but, that is my understanding of its intent.

> Not to mention what actually deploying such a setup would do to the
> existing IPv4 addressing plan.  What are the odds ARIN would approve
> Merit (today, ignoring their legacy /8) requesting an IPv4 /12 so they
> could give every student (38,000 cited elsewhere in the thread) a /29?
> That's what we'd be forcing them to do if they had to provide a subnet
> per student.
> 
This is where IPv4 != IPv6 and there does start to be some reason to
consider
that addresses are no longer scarce.  In IPv4, it is hard to imagine
assigning
a static address to every person on the planet.  In IPv6, it is hard to
imagine the population being sufficient that each person could not have a
/64.

> Perhaps some vendor will come out with a whiz-bang device that allows a
> shared IPv4 subnet while routing IPv6 natively, but I'm not aware of
> anything like that on the market or even proposed for development.
> 
I guess I'm not understanding the situation you are describing here.  There
are several ways to do 6:4 gateways which would allow you to run v4 and v6
on the same segment.  There is nothing which requires you to match your
v4 topology to your v6 topology.  Most Cisco routers can bridge any
protocol which is not routed on a given interface, so, I think CRB should
be possible between v4/v6 as you describe, although I have not tested it.

Owen





-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20050514/dcc34b85/attachment.bin