[arin-discuss] IPv6 End User Assignments

[Aaron Hughes]

US population is roughly 300 million.
A /19 would cover 536,870,912 /48s
A /27 would cover 536,870,912 /56s

7 billion in the world.
A /15 would cover 8,589,934,592 /48s
A /23 would cover 8,589,934,592 /56s.

Number of total Internet users in the world roughly 1.5 billion or 20% of the population.
Number of total Internet users in the US roughly 220 million.

Let's say you are Comcast.. ~ 25 million customers. Worst cast you are looking at a /23 to give each one a /48, or roughly best case a /39 for 2x/64s per customer.

This is not a repeat of v4.

IPv4 ISPs gave a single host to the outside interface of the CPE AND some flavor of space in (RFC1918) 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 for their inside interface.  If we implement NAT in v6, we will stop progress with end-to-end application development and make the same silly mistakes we made with v4.  The mistake was not wasting space but rather not making the leap to IPv6 when we identified the potential for growth so many years ago.  Instead we focused on CIDR/VLSM and NATing everything we could to extend the life of a dying protocol.

It is perfectly reasonable to have standard assignment sizes to create an appropriate customer expectation. Your customers do not need to know what a subnet is.  If the standard was, for example, to assign a /64 to the WAN and /64 to the LAN with SLAAC enabled, the customer behaves the same way they do today.  Those who request more space know what they are doing (generally speaking).

Cheers,
Aaron


On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:21:04AM -0600, Kreg Roenfeldt wrote:
> 
> 
> Eric Windisch wrote:
> > To me, the logical deployment seems to provide a /128 address, and  
> > route a /64, /56, or /48 into that.  My fear is that this will be  
> > hidden inside a cable modem or other CPE that the customer won't have  
> > direct access to, similar to how it is currently, except that  
> > currently we at least have NAT and can avoid proper routing.  A /128  
> > address should be given directly to the customer for routing their  
> > subnet through their own devices.
> Agreed.  Lazy deployed ISP's in my area have often launched broadband to 
> residential homes and businesses by being the gateway for the customer 
> and requiring only a bridged device and a customer to have a switch for 
> adding additional IP's.  This causes very messing layouts.
> 
> Point to Point end connections (/32 in ipv4), on ATM, PPP, PPPoE, etc, 
> to each customer providing 1 IP address per account, and optional 
> additional service for routing subnets to that 1 IP representing the 
> customer is a very clean way to deploy, bill, and adjust address space.  
> Anything else seems wasteful and requiring prediction of future.
> 
> Deploying as a "standard", a subnet every time seems wasteful and 
> defeating the purpose of why are are having to move to a  128bit IP 
> system.  I know 99% of my customers won't have a clue what the word 
> subnet is.
> 
> -=Kreg
> -- 
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
(703) 244-0427
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/