North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Tue Nov 30 11:10:44 2004
[snip a bunch of stuff where we finally appear to basically agree or at least
understand each other]
Actually, that fragmentation was primarily the result of being
insufficiently stingy early on.

There are many kinds of fragmentation.  When you only get (e.g.,) a v4
/24 for a start, and when you need more, you'll have to get a new
non-adjacent /24, there's going to be fragmentation.
I don't think you can equate v4 /24 allocation to v6 /48 allocation.
A /48 gives an organization 65,536 unique subnets, each of which can
accomodate enough hosts that _EVERY_ IPv4 possible host can have
4+billion addresses. Local policy can move the subnet boundary beyond
the /64 point with some effort.

Further, every proposal I have made included the concept that an organization
with provider independent space smaller than /32 (longer prefix), could
only receive at most 1 additional prefix before they surrender their old
prefix, and, then, they would only get to keep the old one for a maximum
of 24 months to renumber.

I believe this removes the fragmentation concern.

We _don't_ want to get to a point where each IPv6 ISP or end-site will
have to have dozens of IPv6 prefixes, just because they outgrew the
previous ones.  There are enough bits to play around.
No, we don't. That's why I've included language in my proposal to specifically
prevent this occurrence.

It's not as we are carving out v4 /8's (1/256 of space) for early
adopters. Or even /16's.  More like the equivalent space of a host
address.  That's hardly too much.  In fact, it's way too little for those
ISPs which have home customers like DSL, and it's going to be a a pain
because they either must get a new prefix or give their customers a /64
instead of /48.
I think that if an ISP can show that they have more than 65536 home DSL
customers, they will not have a problem getting a /31 or larger as needed.
However, I think that today, the bulk of DSL ISPs doe not have that many
customers and aren't likely to in the near future.

In any case, the ones that do already have specific language allowing them
to obtain larger prefixes based on the number of end sites they are assigning
/48s to, so, I'm not sure why you see that as an issue.

Owen


--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: pgp00137.pgp
Description: PGP signature