North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 daydreams

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 23:50:15 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=lTI6dpDGcguBLVu67UjMCWlL/A4c7E3NBJLW2h0PwUCvjpmQMT0EaZ6eYFT8uoLVc8hQr+jRYNXHCd0OLsvn+DmZ78DiZ1i+VwAqHW3dk1slwmIf69R3PmLC1u5JmFiCwMv57RcNvl7qLQmfwE70BbWCMXJ7QHJcTGZHY/hRG+k=

On 17/10/05, David Barak <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give
> every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4
> universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any
> customer can make do with a single IPv4-size universe,
> and make the default end-customer allocation a /96.

I personally am in favor of reducing minimum allocations like this -
and as was discussed quite extensively in the "botnet of toasters and
microwave ovens when you ipv6 enable the lot" thread a few weeks back,
it usually ends up that there's just one host in a /48 or /64 so that
the sparsely populated v6 address space means bots cant go scanning IP
space for vulnerable hosts like they do in v4

It also means that when Vint Cerf's research about extending the
internet into outer space comes through (or when we finally start
exchanging email, http or whatever traffic with aliens), there's
sooner or later going to be an intergalactic assembly of some sort
where delegations from Betelgeuse and Magrathea will complain about
how those @^$^$#^$^ earthlings hogged all the v6 space thinking
there's more than enough v6 IP space to allot a /48 to every single
molecule on earth, so now they're not getting enough IP space to
network a group of computers that'll plot the answer to life, the
universe and everything.

Well, I know that sounds silly, but people were handing out class A, B
and C space for years thinking nobody at all would run out of v4
space, there's lots of it so why not just parcel it out with open

Back to operations - there was this interesting proposal - well, two
proposals as it turned out - at apnic 20 -

>     * prop-031-v001: Proposal to amend APNIC IPv6 assignment and
> utilisation requirement policy
>           o During the discussions, the proposer agreed to a request to separate
> into two proposals:
>                 + Proposal part 1: Evaluation for subsequent allocations to be
> based on an HD-Ratio value of 0.94
>                       # The proposal reached consensus at the Policy SIG meeting
> and AMM and has now been referred to the sig-policy mailing list for the
> next stage in the policy development process.
>                 + Proposal part 2: Add a /56 end-site allocation point (in addition
> to /64 and /48) and default end-site allocation for SOHO end site to be a /56
>                       # This proposal did not reach consensus at the Policy SIG
> meeting.