Closure?

[Craig Martin]

Hi There,

My name is Craig Martin and I am fairly new to this mailing-list. I am an
eager computer and internet hobbyist (besides it being my job!), and as such
have signed up to this ARIN mailing list to try to learn more about the IPv6
recommendations.

Obviously there is a lot of acronyms and the such flying around in these
e-mails to save time for all of you who are up to date on this stuff, but
for myself, I am having a hard time understanding some of it. Thus, I have 2
question for you (if you don't mind!):

1. Where can I get my hands on some basic-intermediate info on IPv6 to allow
me to better understand it and what is being discussed in this group?
2. What are the /35 and /48 and /64 all about? As far as I can tell they are
subnetting (CIDR notation), but I only know the ones for subnetting a Class
C license which as you probably know are /24 to /32. What are the higher
numbers you are talking about? (Or am I completely off base?!?)

Any help with this would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Later,
Craig Martin


----- Original Message -----
From: Shane Kerr <shane at ripe.net>
To: J. Scott Marcus <smarcus at genuity.com>
Cc: <v6wg at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: Closure?


> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
>
> > Again, the recommendation is probably workable.  I am worried about
> > the underlying overconfidence.
>
> This is my position as well.
>
> Actually, I am worried by both the overconfidence and the apparent
> classfulness and inflexibility of IPv6.  We've started with 128 bits,
> threw away half, split the rest up on 16-bit boundaries and now we're
> left with 13 bits to play with all of a sudden.  The analysis that
> "well, it's only 1/8 of the available space" is fundamentally flawed,
> because problems with allocation of that first block may impact the use
> of the rest of the space.  IPv6 folks at the IETF think that people who
> disagree with their recommendation simply don't understand it - not
> true!  I, at least, simply disagree.  The "broad concensus and
> acceptance" within other RIR communities is probably a combination of
> eagerness to roll out new networks and excessive trust in the IETF
> recommendation, rather than a well-thought out assessment of possible
> problems.
>
> But let's be realistic.  It doesn't really matter WHAT the RIR space
> usage recommendations are.  If I get a /35 from APNIC, ARIN, or the RIPE
> NCC, then if I'm at all smart about my allocations, then I won't ever
> need more space.  There's no reason for me to allocate /48, /64, or any
> other specific allocation.  Unless the RIR's decide to monitor
> allocations and REVOKE IPv6 space, any recommendation will carry even
> less weight than TTL suggestions for DNS servers (I was going to say
> something about recommendations to put name servers on seperate
> networks, but that would be an unfair jab at a certain well-known
> company, I suppose...).
>
> Shane
>
>