[arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sun Jan 5 15:28:46 EST 2020


On 05/01/2020 15:26, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>
> It is also likely that the policy of many large ISP's to give a /60 or 
> /56 by default instead of a /48 may not be motivated by any attempt at 
> address conservation, but simply to prevent the ISP from having to ask 
> for more v6 space from their RIR. All RIR's including ARIN set 
> policies that require more fees for larger blocks. In other words, it 
> is about saving money. When IPv6 becomes the primary protocol, RIR 
> costs will be driven by their IPv6 holdings, unlike today where most 
> pay on the basis of IPv4 holdings. Giving out smaller blocks by 
> default will save those operators money.

Fully agree with this view for quiet a while and find weird some 
'recommendations' of /48 for all.


>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This all seems silly to me. #IMHO, IPv4 policy should be geared only 
>> mostly assuaging operators to get to v6. Total exhaustion is a part 
>> of that. Talking about v6
>> exhaustion is probably better suited for the IETF. Either way, we’ll 
>> all be dead if/when it happens and it is not unreasonable to avoid 
>> worrying about a future that
>> is unknown. Do we need to be responsible? Yes. Do we need to worry 
>> about every little detail for 2050? No.
>>
>> We’re operating networks today with typically three to five year 
>> horizons. Let conditions on the ground do their job.
>>
>> YMMV, and warm regards,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 15:41 <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
>>       I understand that there might have been some poor choices made 
>> with IPv6
>>       in regard to address allocation that might lead to a future 
>> exhaust.  The
>>       main one is the 64 bit network and 64 bit host decision, 
>> considering that
>>       it was based on 48 bit ethernet OUI's. I think it should have 
>> been 80 bits
>>       of network and 48 bits of host instead.  Even in the largest of 
>> networks,
>>       48 bits is clearly overkill.  Having the current /64 is clearly 
>> excessive.
>>
>>       Other decisions like giving every node a /48 also add to the 
>> greater
>>       possibility of exhaust at some future time. Many players have 
>> already
>>       decided to assign less than a /48 to their customers by default.
>>
>>       However, unlike the situation of IPv4, there is still plenty of 
>> time to
>>       correct this.  Currently only 1/16 of the address space is 
>> currently used
>>       for global addresses.  When it comes time to assign the next 
>> 1/16 of
>>       space, we could always tighten up the standards, leading to 
>> vastly more
>>       addresses being available per 1/16 block. Adoption of an 80/48 
>> split by
>>       existing players would vastly expand their holdings. Also, 
>> adoption of
>>       only providing a /48 upon request and defaulting to /56 or /60 
>> can also
>>       vastly expand holdings as well.
>>
>>       We still have plenty of time while only 1/16 of the address 
>> space is being
>>       used to address being more conservative in the future.
>>
>>       Does anyone know what is the utilization rate of 2000::/3 is or 
>> where this
>>       data is being tracked?
>>
>>       Albert Erdmann
>>       Network Administrator
>>       Paradise On Line Inc.
>>
>>       On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>>       > In message 
>> <alpine.LRH.2.21.2001031911040.742 at bigone.uneedus.com>,
>>       > hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>>       >
>>       >> [IPv6] also brings RIR's
>>       >> back to their original record keeping role, without having 
>> to police the
>>       >> number of addresses that a member needs.
>>       >
>>       > I am not persuaded that this will be the case.  When IPv4 was 
>> first
>>       > promulgated, I do believe that just about everyone felt that 
>> there
>>       > was no way in hell that "the Internet" such as it was, or 
>> such as it
>>       > might become, could ever use up 4 billion addresses. Now 
>> admittedly,
>>       > things -are- rather different with IPv6, where the number of 
>> addreses
>>       > is a lot closer to the number of elementary particles in the 
>> Universe,
>>       > but I do think it is unwise to ever assume that there are any 
>> practical
>>       > limits on man's ability and/or willingness to waste stuff.  
>> In other
>>       > words, I think that some amount of thoughtful husbandry of 
>> the resource
>>       > will always be needed.
>>       >
>>       >
>>       > Regards,
>>       > rfg
>>       > _______________________________________________
>>       > ARIN-PPML
>>       > 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:
>>       > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>       > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>       >
>>       _______________________________________________
>>       ARIN-PPML
>>       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:
>>       https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>       Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20200105/d46c9a9c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list