[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Kevin Loch]

Leo Bicknell wrote:
> So Verizon has a revenue stream of $40/month for supplying a static
> address.

This is more about static vs dynamic than it is about single ip vs
subnet.  They already know everyone is using NAT so it's not about
the number of users supported.  It's about services and applications
that expect consistent endpoints.

> Now, I can't predict the future, but I can already see the arguments
> being made by sales, marketing, and the like that in an IPv6 world
> you should get a single address, and if you want more (1? 5?, are
> we really going to hope for a /64?) it will be $40/month.  I've
> never met a sales, marking, or board member who would give up
> $40/month per subscriber "because the protocol designers say it's
> a good idea".

Fortunately the phone company isn't the only provider of IP services.
There are and will be ISP's that allocate /48's and /64's in all
of their packages.  Let's not change registry policy based upon
phone company, cable company or any other monopoly business model.

I agree with you that 32 bits is more than sufficient for host id's.
  However I don't see any reason to change /64 -> /96 at this time.

o Increasing the HD ratio, or a flat utilization threshold fixes
   any possible shortage.  If that doesn't do it, /48 -> /56
   would.  The more I look at the numbers, the more convinced I
   am that /48 should be left alone and a flat threshold be used
   (perhaps 60%).

o Autoconfiguration uses 64 bits right now.  That's running code.
   I suggest we change that before we change registry policy on /64.

o Other uses for those 64 bits have been proposed and I am more
   interested in seeing what creative people will do with those
   bits than solving the non problem of address shortage.

- Kevin