[arin-ppml] A modest proposal for IPv6 address allocations
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Mon Jun 1 09:23:28 EDT 2009
Agreed a /56 might be appropriate.
Earlier Owen appropriately corrected me for comparing a /48 v6 allocation to a class B v4 allocation but he actually enforced the point I was going to make. Even a /48 allocation for small business or individual use is a bit ridiculous given conventional IP network architectures. But one of our problems is that since we don't have any truly large scale deployments (something at least into the 100K nodes size), we don't know what a real IPv6 network may consume.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand; William Herrin
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A modest proposal for IPv6 address allocations
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Not sure about all the details, but I like the fact
> > that we'd be able to do away with the ISP/end-user distinction, make it
> > easy to get a /48, and provide a simple growth path for the most common
> > cases...
> > -Scott
> But, let me express (uncharacteristically) some concern about overly
> liberal initial allocations. (e.g., why not a /56?) From the standpoint of
> developing countries, there is some legitimate concern about reproducing
> the land rush phase of IPv4 address allocations (oops, there goes 1/3 of
> the space....)
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML