IPv6 daydreams

Mon Oct 17 08:31:08 UTC 2005

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 02:52 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 
> 
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote:
> > Hopefully, that will reach a point where the operators show up and
> > participate at IETF, rather than the IETF coming to NANOG.
> >
> 
> agreed.

Full ack. Ops should really realize that they can have a lot of
influence in the processes and what is actually being standardized.
Which really helps the ops a lot as they then have an extra foot in
the door at the Vendors, as the IETF is also known as the IVTF as some
people like to call it :)

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:15 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 17/10/05, David Barak <thegameiam at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give
> > every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4
> > universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any
> > customer can make do with a single IPv4-size universe,
> > and make the default end-customer allocation a /96.
> 
> I personally am in favor of reducing minimum allocations like this -
> and as was discussed quite extensively in the "botnet of toasters and
> microwave ovens when you ipv6 enable the lot" thread a few weeks back,
> it usually ends up that there's just one host in a /48 or /64 so that
> the sparsely populated v6 address space means bots cant go scanning IP
> space for vulnerable hosts like they do in v4

There is a current document out for trying to get this stepped back to
a /56 for _enduser_ sites. Corporate / Organisational / Business sites
should then still get a /48.

HD ratio docs:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-1.html
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08.html

Endsite definition:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-4.html

As a note, out of my IPv6 /48, at home, I only use one /64 as I bridged
the wireless and wired networks. This was easier than having Samba do
remote announces to the other /64 and also allows me to re-attach my
laptop and plug it into the wired without it changing the IP, very cheap
'mobility' :) A /56 for 'home usage', thus having 2^8 = 256 /64's or
subnets would IMHO (force me to drink beer when this ever turns out to
be wrong :) be enough for most home usages. I really don't see people
installing 200+ routed networks in a home. Most people don't even have
more than 4 rooms and one /64 already contains 2^64 addresses, unless we
go for the IP-per-carpet-fiber approach, just give the carpet in your
house a single /64 and you still have 255 subnets to go...

> It also means that when Vint Cerf's research about extending the
> internet into outer space comes through (or when we finally start
> exchanging email, http or whatever traffic with aliens), there's
> sooner or later going to be an intergalactic assembly of some sort
> where delegations from Betelgeuse and Magrathea will complain about
> how those @^$^$#^$^ earthlings hogged all the v6 space thinking
> there's more than enough v6 IP space to allot a /48 to every single
> molecule on earth, so now they're not getting enough IP space to
> network a group of computers that'll plot the answer to life, the
> universe and everything.

They don't need to, this computer is already there, it is Earth.....
there just ain't no plotter installed and we will be destroyed for that
superhighway and then re-built as Earth 2, but we won't notice that :)

> Well, I know that sounds silly, but people were handing out class A, B
> and C space for years thinking nobody at all would run out of v4
> space, there's lots of it so why not just parcel it out with open
> hands.

The Huitema-Durand / Host-Density (HD) ratio RFC3194 it explains quite a
number of these issues and covers most of them.

Next to that note that 2000::/3 is only 1/8th of the total IPv6 address
space. If we peep up, we can do that 8 times before the address space is
full and I am quite sure if 2000::/3 runs out that people will start
having some really loud discussions. Indeed 2000::/3 would then be
similar to 'class A' space...

> Back to operations - there was this interesting proposal - well, two
> proposals as it turned out - at apnic 20 -
> http://www.apnic.net/meetings/20/report.html

Similar to the one done above in the RIPE region :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051017/5145d6f4/attachment.sig>