IPv6 end user addressing

Mon Aug 8 22:52:03 UTC 2011

we assign /112 per "end user vlan (or server)" at this moment... works 
perfectly fine (and thats even "a bit too big").

- nobody wants to use dynamic ips on -servers- or -router links- anyway

i -really- can't see why people don't just use subnets with just the 
required number of addresses.

take one /64 (for /64's sake ;), split it up into subnets which each have 
the required number of addresses (lets say you have 2-4 addresses for each 
bgp/router link, so you simply split it up into subnets that size)

etc.

no need to use /64 for -everything- at all, just because it fits 
(ethernet) mac addresses (as if ethernet will be around longer than ipv6 
ha-ha, someone will come up with something faster tomorrow and then its 
bye bye ethernet, the 10ge variant is getting slow, and the 100ge variant 
is not even standardized yet, and trunking is a bottleneck ;)

we don't use /24's for -everything- on ipv4 now do we :P

(oh wait, there once was a time where we did.. due to another retarded 
semi-automatic configuration thingy, called RIP , which also only seemed 
to understand /24 or bigger ;)

-- 
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=========================================================================
Address: Koloniestrasse 34         VAT Tax ID:      DE267268209
          D-13359                   Registration:    HRA 42834 B
          BERLIN                    Phone:           +31/(0)87-8747479
          Germany                   GSM:             +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:    CBSK1-RIPE                e-Mail:          sven at cb3rob.net
=========================================================================
<penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle
http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob
=========================================================================

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
>>> So you want HE to force all their clients to renumber.
>>
>> No.  I am simply pointing out that Owen exaggerated when he stated
>> that he implements the following three practices together on his own
>> networks:
>> * hierarchical addressing
>> * nibble-aligned addressing
>> * /48 per access customer
>>
>> You can simply read the last few messages in this thread to learn that
>> his recommendations on this list are not even practical for his
>> network today, because as Owen himself says, they are not yet able to
>> obtain additional RIR allocations.  HE certainly operates a useful,
>> high-profile tunnel-broker service which is IMO a very great asset to
>> the Internet at-large; but if you spend a few minutes looking at the
>> publicly available statistics on this service, they average only
>> around 10,000 active tunnels across all their tunnel termination boxes
>> combined.  They have not implemented the policies recommended by Owen
>> because, as he states, a /32 is not enough.
>>
>> Do I think the position he advocates will cause the eventual
>> exhaustion of IPv6?  Well, let's do an exercise:
>>
>> There has been some rather simplistic arithmetic posted today, 300m
>> new subnets per year, etc. with zero consideration of address/subnet
>> utilization efficiency within ISP networks and individual aggregation
>> router pools.  That is foolish.  We can all pull out a calculator and
>> figure that 2000::/3 has space for 35 trillion /48 networks.  That
>> isn't how they will be assigned or routed.
>>
>> The effect of 2011-3 is that an out-sized ISP like AT&T has every
>> justification for deciding to allocate 24 bits worth of subnet ID for
>> their "largest POP," say, one that happens to terminate layer-3
>> services for all customers in an entire state.  They then have policy
>> support for allocating the same sized subnet for every other POP, no
>> matter how small.  After all, the RIR policy permits them to obtain
>> additional allocations as soon as one POP subnet has become full.
>>
>> So now you have a huge ISP with a few huge POPs, and a lot of small
>> ones, justified in assigning the same size aggregate prefix, suitable
>> for 2^24 subnets, to all those small POPs as well.  How many layer-3
>> POPs might this huge ISP have?  Any number.  It could be every central
>> office with some kind of layer-3 customer aggregation router.  It
>> could even be every road-side hut for FTTH services.  Perhaps they
>> will decide to address ten thousand POPs this way.
>>
>> Now the nibble-aligned language in the policy permits them to round up
>> from 10,000 POPs to 16 bits worth of address space for "POP ID."  So
>> AT&T is quite justified in requesting:
>>    48 (customer subnet length) - 24 (largest POP subnet ID size) - 16
>> (POP ID) == a /8 subnet for themselves.
>>
> Right up until you read:
>
> 6.5.3 (d):
> If an LIR has already reached a /12 or more, ARIN will
> allocate a single additional /12 rather than continue
> expanding nibble boundaries.
> As you can see, there is a safety valve in the policy at /12 for just
> this reason.
>
>
>> Now you can see how this policy, and addressing scheme, is utterly
>> brain-dead.  It really does put you (and me, and everyone else) in
>> real danger of exhausting the IPv6 address space.  All it takes is a
>> few out-sized ISPs, with one large POP each and a bunch of smaller
>> ones, applying for the maximum amount of address space permitted them
>> under 2011-3.
>>
>
> Even by your calculations, it would take 256 such outsized ISPs without
> a safety valve. With the safety valve that is built into the policy at /12,
> it would take 4,096 such ISPs. I do not believe that there are more than
> about 20 such ISPs world wide at this time and would put the foreseeable
> likely maximum at less than 100 due to the need for customers to support
> such outsized ISPs and the limited base that would have to be divided
> among them.
>
> Owen
>
>