Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

Joe Maimon jmaimon at ttec.com
Fri Jul 23 04:51:14 UTC 2010



Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 +0100
> Matthew Walster<matthew at walster.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 22 July 2010 14:11, Alex Band<alexb at ripe.net>  wrote:
>>> There are more options, but these two are the most convenient weighing all
>>> the up and downsides. Does anyone disagree?
>>
>> I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
>> better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
>> customer a /64 and assign them a /56 or /48 if they request it, routed
>> to an IP of their choosing.
>>
>
> I estimate that an addressing request will cost the ISP at least 15
> minutes of time to process. When a minimum allocation of a /32 contains
> 16 777 216 /56s, do you really need to create that artificial
> addressing cost, eventually passed onto the customer?

Funny how so much concern is given to eliminating the possibility of end 
users returning for more space, yet for ISP's we have no real concern 
with what will happen when they near depletion of their /32 what with 
/48s to some thousands customers, aggregation, churn, what have you.

The effort and cost of that on the organization is hard to predict, 
especially as how it may vary from size to size, organization to 
organization. Furthermore, everyone else pays with a DFZ slot.

/48 per customer gives the customer as many potential subnets as you 
have potential customers.

>
> With more address space than we need, the value we get is addressing
> convenience (just like we've had in Ethernet addressing since 1982).
> There is no need to make IPv6 addressing artificially precious and as
> costly as IPv4 addressing is.

A balance should be struck and for that to happen, weight must be given 
to both sides.

Joe





More information about the NANOG mailing list