A crazy idea

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sun Aug 1 19:39:07 UTC 2021

> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe <daniel at corbe.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
>> tim at pelican.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" <list at satchell.net> said:
>>>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
>>>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
>>>> governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
>>>> /96, /104 or even /112 allocations if they could get them.  (Just how
>>>> many light bulbs, fridges, toasters, doorbells, phones, &c does SOHOs
>>>> have?)  I would *not* like to see "us" make the same mistake with IPv6
>>>> that was made with IPv4, handing out large blocks of space like so many
>>>> pieces of M&M or Skittles candy.
>>> Nay, nay, and thrice nay.  Don't think in terms of addresses for IPv6, think in terms of subnets.  I can't stress this enough, it's the big v4 to v6 paradigm shift - don't think about "how many hosts on this net", think about "how many nets".
>> Think of how many large ISP's a /3 of ipv6 effectively holds, assuming that /48 per customer is the norm, and /24 up to /12 assignments for those ISP's is also.
>> In those terms IPv6 isnt that much bigger.
> I haven’t seen evidence that any RIR has allocated an entire /12 to an ISP.  Even a large one.  

I haven’t seen any evidence that an ISP has requested a /12 from an RIR. How would an RIR issue a block that hasn’t been requested?


More information about the NANOG mailing list