[ppml] IPv6>>32

Lea Roberts lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Fri May 13 15:29:09 EDT 2005

I think this /48 per room stuff is just a little over the top.
Is this "just because we can"??  Let's try to show a little sense
and some version of reality rather than extreme future fantasy...
are there really going to be 64K *subnets* in each dorm room???

which brings me another complaint about this thread...  people
are talking like networks should assign a /64 per host.  these are
subnets, people!!  they might even have 10s of hosts using one prefix!

more comments inline for the top-posting averse...

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
> --On Friday, May 13, 2005 10:24 AM -0400 "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb at merit.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:31 +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that the /48 --> /56 issue is definitely second priority.
> >> If we can solve the immediate problem by adjusting the HD ratio
> >> rules then we should limit current action to that area.
> >>
> >
> >      I think there are other reasons for considering /56's.   Consider,
> > for example, university dorms rooms.  Should each of them get a /48?
> > The University of Michigan has 5793 dorms and 1483 family housing
> > apartments (ref -- http://www.housing.umich.edu/general/factsheet.html).
> > You'd need a /35 at a minimum to give everyone a /48 and that wouldn't
> > leave much headroom or flexibility in addressing hierarchy.
> > Realistically, you probably want to assign a /32.
> >
> And the policy states that such a situation would be an LIR anyway, as they
> obviously have at least 200 students (external customers) subscribing to
> their IP service.  Voila... They get a /32 anyway.

you are building a network here...  one can imagine a future topology
where there might really be a router per room (the reason you would assign
a /48 under current policy), then might not a /60 be a reasonable
allocation through that router, to a single room??  Now we're back to the
/64 per host; it never quits.  BTW, I don't think the ability to switch
providers argument is going to apply to dorm rooms (but I suppose that's
just because I'm unimaginative and closed minded.  :-)  So thanks for an
excellent example of how the current policy really does need some

> >      Merit provides Internet access for 13 universities and the State
> > of Michigan.  Based on the above considerations, we asked for a /28
> > from ARIN (enough for a /32 for each university and the state).   Our
> > application was denied, and we only received a /32.   What size prefix
> > should allocate to the universities (ARIN suggested a /40)?   What
> > prefix size should we advise them to assign to dorm rooms?
> >
> Since each of them would qualify as an LIR most likely, I see no problem
> with
> each of them getting a /32 under existing policy and if they wanted to
> aggregate within your block, I can see no justification for not approving
> a /28 to deal with that.  However, I think that the policy makes it
> pretty clear that they could each qualify for a /32 as an LIR direct.
> If they can use a /40, that's reasonable, too, depending on each other
> university's particular needs.

Obviously, I should get in the application for Stanford's /32 before some
sanity returns to IPv6 address policy... 	gotta run,	/Lea

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list