How to wish you hadn't forced ipv6 adoption (was "How to force rapid ipv6 adoption")
owen at delong.com
Fri Oct 2 18:35:24 UTC 2015
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 21:47 , Rob McEwen <rob at invaluement.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 12:18 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> A hoster can get /48's for each customer. Each customer is technically
>> a seperate site. It's this stupid desire to over conserve IPv6
>> addresses that causes this not IPv6.
> In theory, yes. In practice, I'm skeptical. I think many will sub-delegate /64s
Then as another poster suggested, they deserve whatever pain they suffer from this.
Mark is correct… It is the ISP’s poor decision in these cases that is the problem. Not the SPAM block and not IPv6.
> Plus, nobody has yet addressed the fact that new /48s will be just so EASY to obtain since they are going to be plentiful... therefore... the LACK of scarcity will make hosters and ESP... NOT be very motivated to keep their IP space clean... as is the case now with IPv4.
That’s not as true as you want to believe it to be.
While /48s are not scarce globally, there is a significant cost to going back to the RIR for a larger allocation. You have to show active utilization of your existing space in order to get more.
As such, ISPs are going to be motivated not to treat blocks as disposable entities.
> Also, it seems so bizarre that in order to TRY to solve this, we have to make sure that MASSIVE numbers of individual IPv6 IP addresses.. that equal numbers that my calculate can't reach (too many digits)... would all be allocated to one single combined usage scenario. Then allocating only /48s multiples that number by 65K. Mind boggling
You’ll get over that eventually. Once you get some experience with the conveniences and other advantages it brings, it’s actually pretty easy to wrap your head around.
More information about the NANOG