[ppml] /48 vs /32 micro allocations

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:07:40AM -0500, Kevin Loch wrote:
> bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
> >     let me answer with some questions.
> 
> No, please don't.  Especially questions about IPv4
> utilization in a discussion about IPv6 policy.  Trying to
> blindly map IPv4 policy into IPv6 no sense at all.

	not being blind at all.  learning from history.
	if you can't see that IPv4 is fundamentally identical
	to IPv6, then we are not on common ground and will talk
	past each other.

> *Especially* questions about advertising reachability
> to hosts that aren't listening.  That can't possibly be
> relevant to IPv6.

	ok... your universe.

> C'mon Bill, If there are benefits to /48 vs /32 allocations
> state them plainly.  I'm not doubting that there are, I
> just can't think of any myself, and so far you haven't
> presented any.

	there are benefits to /48 delegations, to /32 delegations,
	to /96 delegations, and /112 delegations.  The delegation,
	IMHO, should be the closest fit to the actual requirement.
	presenting more "shadow" space than is being used is an atractive
	target for abuse.  I was hoping you'd at least -TRY- to work past
	your fixations on current hardware/routing software limitations
	and take the longer view, but you seem to want affirmation of
	your existing ideas.

> >     i'd like to see actual data to back these assertions.
> 
> The routes are in plain view.  There are several looking glasses
> that show /48's transiting many networks.  That's not to say
> that everyone is, but enough are that it is a worrying trend.

	plain view to -whom-?  from my perspective, i see /48s 
	as well as some longer prefixes.  you think I should only
	see /32s?  and if so, why do you think that?

> >     (anyone willing to listen to some /96 or /112 entries?  didn't
> >      think so... :)
> I sure hope not! :)
> Then again, I would hope that nobody would carry deaggregated /48's
> either!

	i see, we are talking past each other.  Well then.
	To conserve routing table slots  in 2005 era routers, 
	with 1990's based EGP protocols, it should be incumbent
	on the RIR's, who have ZERO to say about how ISPs perform routing
	to only release IPv6 address space in /32 blocks in the (vain)
	hope that:
		) there will be enough IPv6 space to last for the next
		  30 years
		) no one would -ever- dare treat IPv6 space as anything
		  useful in less than /32 chunks
		) no harm will insue if folks advertise routes to space
	    	  that has no endsystem attached.
		) we understand all there is to know about how applications
		  and services will develop over the next two decades to
		  presume a steady, consistant "burn-rate" of space.
		) no fundamental technological changes will occur on our
		  watch and if it does, it can be solved by new talent.
		) that the IETF leaves routing development alone.

	If this is the basis of your argument, then i'll agree that its 
	a good proposal, if all my points are accepted and ISPs agree to
	never announce anything smaller than what there RIR gives them.

	Of course the IETF had better start in -RIGHT NOW- to work on the
	next generation IP.  for IPv6 will be dead.  

	As usual, YMMV. 

> 
> Kevin Loch

--bill