v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Mon Dec 24 00:31:45 UTC 2007
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:26:12 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net> wrote:
> > If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
> > technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
> > done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
> > length node addressing layer 3 protocols (mainly all of them except
> > IPv4!)) you'll know what I mean.
> > I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
> > spending/"wasting" address space on operational convenience - who needs
> > 46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!? If I
> > recall correctly from bits and pieces I've read about early Ethernet,
> > the very first versions of Ethernet only had 16 bit node addressing.
> > They then decided to spend/"waste" bits on addressing to get
> > operational convenience - "plug and play" layer 2 networking.
> The difference is that it doesn't "cost" anything. There are no RIR fees,
> there is no justification. You don't pay for, or have to justify, your
> Ethernet MAC addresses.
> With IPv6, there are certain pressures being placed on ISP's not to be
> completely wasteful.
I don't think there is that difference at all. MAC address allocations
are paid for by the Ethernet chipset/card vendor, and I'm pretty sure
they have to justify their usage before they're allowed to buy another
block. I understand they're US$1250 an OUI, so something must have
happened to prevent somebody buying them all up to hoard them, creating
artificial scarcity, and then charging a market sensitive price for
them, rather than the flat rate they cost now. That's not really any
different to an ISP paying RIR fees, and then indirectly passing those
costs onto their customers.
> This will compel ISP's to at least consider the issues, and it will most
> likely force users to buy into technologies that allow them to do what they
> want. And inside a /64, you have sufficient space that there's probably
> nothing you can't do. :-)
> ... JG
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
More information about the NANOG