<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 10/14/10 11:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:6E489EC5-BE01-46E6-AA63-F7FF1F89303F@delong.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Owen
DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;">
<div>If you can get 6rd to fit in single /16, then,
perhaps we could consider allowing it to be permanent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd /24s,
then, you're talking about the vast majority of an
entire /12 just in the ARIN region.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why not we make it a /28, and thus give the customer a
/60? The customer still gets 16 subnets for his house, and
when 6rd goes away (since, as you point out there are
other disadvantages beyond address space use compared to
native IPv6), then the subnet will be /56 (since,
following your reasoning, that is what competitors with
native IPv6 access will be providing).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
/60s are horrible... They completely stifle any ability for the
customer to do PD-based topology</div>
<div>within the site.</div>
</blockquote>
I think you are assuming what the PD-based topology mechanisms are
going to be. They haven't really been designed, and certainly
haven't been coded and shipped yet. All we are doing at this point
is providing a playing field. Within that field:<br>
<br>
/60 is an *enormous* improvement over /64. Night and day.<br>
<br>
/56 is certainly better than /60, but not night and day as with /64
and /60. <br>
<br>
The point here is that if we design home routing and PD for 2^4
subnets, it's not hard to take that and extend it for 2^8 or 2^16.
Not so if you are starting with 2^1.<br>
<br>
Consumer products will be designed to operate within the lowest
common denominator of the above. If we can make that /60 vs. /64,
that's a big win and we might see some potential for upsell into /56
for "bigger home networks". But, if we have to do a ton of work to
make networks work within a single /64 anyway, once we have done
that, it's hard to argue for supporting multiple subnets as well.
I'm trying to avoid having to do the work at all for /64, but that
can only happen if I know the minimum number of subnets in the home
is greater than 1. <br>
<br>
- Mark<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6E489EC5-BE01-46E6-AA63-F7FF1F89303F@delong.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I would point out that the only ISP I am aware of that
is conducting residential trials of IPv6 seems to be
talking about giving only a /64 to the home by default due
to CPE issues. To me, that is a much greater problem than
having a /60 instead of a /56, because with a /64 you
can't do any subnetting at all.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>True... /64 should be even more discouraged than /60, but,
the reality is that we should look at</div>
<div>/56 as a temporary expedient due to inefficiencies in 6rd and
consider /48 the norm.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>