How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")

Fri Oct 2 11:14:24 UTC 2015

Not all providers are large enough to justify a /32. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Philip Dorr" <tagno25 at gmail.com> 
To: "Rob McEwen" <rob at invaluement.com> 
Cc: "nanog group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 11:14:35 PM 
Subject: Re: How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption") 

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote: 
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: 
>> 
>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's 
>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's 
>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR's so 
>> their isn't infinite numbers of sites that a spammer can get. 
> 
> 
> A /48 can be subdivided into 65K subnets. That is 65 *THOUSAND*... not the 
> 256 IPs that one gets with an IPv4 /24 block. So if a somewhat legit hoster 
> assigns various /64s to DIFFERENT customers of theirs... that is a lot of 
> collateral damage that would be caused by listing at the /48 level, should 
> just one customer be a bad-apple spammer, or just one legit customer have a 
> compromised system one day. 

As a provider (ISP or Hosting), you should hand the customers at a 
minimum a /56, if not a /48. The provider should have at a minimum a 
/32. If the provider is only giving their customers a /64, then they 
deserve all the pain they receive. 