[ppml] 2005-1:Multi-national Business Enablement

[Daniel Roesen]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 09:13:48AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > Nope. They should get a /48 unless they can convincingly show that
> > they'll never need more than a single subnet.
> 
> It is ridiculous to think that ISPs are going to completely discard their
> current IPv4 topology to deploy IPv6.

Why must they discard any topology? They might have problems to charge
for /48 instead of /64 if /48 becomes "usual" at the competitors, yeah.
But that's primarily a business thing.

> Most "residential" ISPs I'm aware of use a single subnet for N customers,

Hm? I guess you are referring to cable modem stuff?

Over here (DE), almost all residential users use dial-up, be it real
(analog, ISDN) or virtual (DSL, via PPPoE). So they are connected via
virtual interfaces, and get their IP address usually via dynamic pools
or static via RADIUS. No problem adapting this to assign /48s
(especially via RADIUS).

> and that is perfectly reasonable to continue with IPv6 -- just assign
> a /64. That allows customers to put as many hosts as they want on the
> "bare" connection, and any who want their own subnet(s) can be issued
> a /64 or /48 of their own

And then charged additional install and monthly fee? Cool. We want to
get rid of this as much as possible. Artificial scarcity sucks. In IPv4,
there is the perceived scarcity excuse for ISPs. Don't recreate that in
IPv6, thanks.

The mantra is "/48, no questions asked, and by default".

> but most will not be interested in that or even understand what it
> means.

So what? If done properly, someone who doesn't care can just ignore
the availability of the rest.

But as someone else noticed, this discussion is sliding off.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0