It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum

TJ trejrco at gmail.com
Mon Aug 18 16:43:20 CDT 2008


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner at cluebyfour.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM
>To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>
>On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>> On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
>>
>>> Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I
>>> like wasting addresses :)
>>
>> That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
>>
>> For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers
>> generally have a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning:
>> for a customer that only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not
>> feasible to create a separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of
>> addresses. But invariably, these customers on shared subnets grow, so
>> over time the logical subnet gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks
>> that are shared by a relatively large number of customers, and because
>> of resistance to renumbering, it's impossible to fix this later on.
>
>I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space.  My
>earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
>point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses.  In that
>case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or at the
>maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.

Actually, in most cases - you would assign customers more than a /64.
*Hopefully* a /56 as the smallest ... ~/48 for enterprises ... 


>
>jms

/TJ





More information about the NANOG mailing list