[arin-ppml] IPv6 Transition Policy (aka Soft Landing)

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:46 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> This would be terrible... An ISP with 20,000,000 customers
>> should NEVER get a /32. They should
>> get a much larger prefix. Probably at least a /20 if not a /16.
> 
> Owen,
> 
> We've gone to an address space 30 orders of magnitude larger. Would
> you truly have us start our burn at rates only 2 orders slower than
> the accelerating consumption of IPv4?
> 
> Regards.
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
Bill... See my previous post. End sites should get at least a /48... If you serve 20,000,000 end sites, you need 23 bits to define those customers. 48-23 is 25. The closest larger nibble boundary is 20.  There are few enough providers serving 20,000,000 subscribers that I don't see it as a problem. Most providers should probably get /28s with larger ones getting /24s and smaller ones getting /32s.

We will cause harm by being stingy with address space beyond these points.

Owen

> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004