IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
Hugo Slabbert
hugo at slabnet.com
Thu Oct 9 05:06:23 UTC 2014
Mark,
>> >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers.
>>
>> I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the technical or
>> otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ?
>
>256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number
>of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design
>for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default to
>/56 are making them a scares resource.
The excerpt Royce quoted from RFC6177 (requoted below) seems to back away
from /48s by default to all resi users and land in a somewhat vague "more
than a /64 please, but we're not specifically recommending /48s across the
board for residential" before specifically mentioning /56 assignments.
The general push in the community is towards /48 across the board. Any
comments on why the RFC backs away from that? Is this just throwing a bone
to the masses complaining about "waste"?
btw: hat tip to Peter Rocca for a kind of scale we're talking about for
allocatable space.
--
Hugo
>Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177):
>
> While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management
> for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful.
> For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees)
> would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home
> user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a
> small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that
> the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few
> decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K
> subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be
> tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already
> significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice.
> However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will
> grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is
> strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets
> worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends
> giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not
> recommend that every home site be given a /48 either.
>
> A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on
> address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6.
> For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for
> the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a
> savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the "total projected address
> consumption" by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The
> exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users
> compared with the number of larger sites.)
>
> The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving
> home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141008/82b9e6ec/attachment.sig>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list