A crazy idea
daniel at corbe.net
Thu Jul 29 21:14:05 UTC 2021
> 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.
More information about the NANOG