Rob Seastrom rs at
Mon Dec 2 15:46:30 UTC 2013

Jean-Francois.TremblayING at writes:

>> IPv4-thinking.  In the fullness of time this line of reasoning [...]
> Hopefully, the fullness of time won't apply to 6RD (this is what
> was being discussed here, not dual-stack).

I agree but there's a subtlety here - we don't want to get people used
to parsimony in IPv6-land via chintzing out on deployments with a
transition technology.  There are dinosaurs in every organization who
cling to the "monetizing addresses/subnets" model and will want to
charge more for a /48 or a /56 and point to the market being used to a
/60 or a /64, and it becomes the unfortunate task for folks like us to
argue against that line of thinking.  We've got a little over two
decades worth of IPv4 penny-pinching to undo here, and the interim
deployments ought to help that to the degree possible.

> Most MSOs are planning /56s for native. ARIN 2011-3 is great, but
> it came a bit late (January 2012) for those who already had planned
> their network.

Yep, we're planning /56es for native at $DAYJOB too.  Worse than /48s,
not as bad as /64s or /60s.  Not that ARIN policies constrain this at
all; it was certainly possible before 2011-3 to get more than a /32 of
space, it just wasn't as easy (certainly there was more than one org
that managed to do it).  As for the 6rd part, there was no 2010-12 6rd
policy before December 2010...  then again, before August 2010 there
was no 6rd.  :)  I'm unfortunately quite familiar with the internal
costs of a do-over in a large organization.


More information about the NANOG mailing list