IPv6 & /48 Re: [ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Lea Roberts]

Your analogy is equally faulty.  Reassignments are done once, whether it's
being given a fixed block or dynamic prefix assignment.  It's still a flat
rate network service.

and don't kid yourself...  inside networks there will be lots of prefixes
of different lengths distributed in the routing systems.  like you say
it's what gets announced into the global space that needs constraint.


On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> > What I mean is - I have yet to be convinced that there is a concrete
> > reason to assign gobs of addresses to my house.  Why not dole out
> > IPv6 a few addresses at a time until it's clear I need a /48 or /52
> > or /60.
>
> Because history has shown that this is a *BAD* idea. This thinking
> is behind telephone billing systems. Why should you pay for the
> time when you are not making a phonecall? It sounds logical but we
> know that the end result was in the mid 1990's, 75% of the cost of
> the telecom systems was in the telephone billing systems and the
> support for billing systems throughout the network. Do we want to
> recreate this with IPv6?
>
> The lesson of flat rate billing systems is that it is cheaper overall
> for everyone when you just overprovision the network and just share
> the costs according to a simple, predictable, pre-calculated system.
> It may seem that bandwidth is wasted, but the alternative is to waste
> money on complex billing and accounting systems. IPv6 may appear to
> waste addresses but in reality, it is spending those addresses to buy
> a simpler overall addressing architecture that saves everyone money.
> Simple is good.
>
> > My lack of addresses (when I am home) isn't what's holding
> > back innovation.  Wouldn't my squandering addresses be a bigger risk
> > to future innovation?
>
> Not at all. Innovation comes about when traditional ways of doing
> things can no longer cope. It has nothing to do with IPv6 address
> conservation. If we run out of IPv6 addresses in the year 2105, then
> that may spark some innovation.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>