SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]

-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] På vegne av Iljitsch van Beijnum

>No matter how much money you have, you're not going to get a packet 
>from London to New York in (say) 10 ms. Sure, if you spend more money 
>you can get MORE packets from London to New York in 100 ms, but that's 
>not what I call "faster".

I think Randy said it all. I'll buy you a beer when I get my $1 mil then.

>> Renumbering will be just as easy with any number between 0 and 127 as 
>> long as the new prefix is equal or larger to the previous.
>
>So how would that happen if everyone would have their own policy for 
>this?

As long as you get one billion times more addresses than you need, the size of your new allocation will depend on the current address policy which will change over time as the amount of free IPv6 addresses gets reduced. This is (mostly) why the early birds on the Internet got a class /8 IPv4 block, and I bet some of them don't even use close to all of it.
How long do you think this /48 policy will last? I was hoping for at least 60 years++ so I don't need to have the same discussion again with IPv8.


>> With dhcp it doesn't matter.
>
>Most people aren't going to use DHCP in IPv6.

Which is another discussion.


>> I am aware of rfc3177 saying "a company with several nets gets a /48 
>> and allocate /64s for each of their subnets". But let's not mix the 
>> word recommendation with must. Why we allocate a /124 on our lan 
>> instead of /64 is not of anyones concern but us
> From RFC 3513:
>
>    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
>    000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
>    constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
>
>In theory I agree with you as IPv6 is supposed to be classless, but in 
>practice the above makes sense as it would probably be too difficult to 
>support address autoconfiguration with variable subnet sizes.
>
>> and therefore the enforced 48 number is unreasonable.
>
>I don't see why it's unreasonable. At least this way everyone gets the 
>same, regardless of which ISP they use. (It's always possible to 
>request a bigger block for those who need it.)

So you are saying that documenting your need of a /48 will be rejected by future LIRs due to their own address policy and they will give you a /56 instead because that’s what their policy says? 
I don't believe that will happen as long as the RIRs have somewhat loose policies. ARIN allocates you a netblock and you do whatever you want with it. With RIPE you need to apply for allocations within your assigned netblock. I can see that this might impact on the different policies in the US.
But what about you document the need of a /40 but will only get a /48 (/47)? 


>
>> A more specific problem with this allocation policy:
>> You would expect that if a /64 is the standard allocation size of a 
>> lan, then we can all start filtering on /64s instead of /128s if we 
>> want to do per-ipv6 filtering, right?
>
>I don't understand what you're getting at...

I see I was a bit unclear.
Limitation of 1 ftp connection per user, 1 registration per user on our website and so on..
Simple techniques to reduce abuse++ often take advantage of the one machine to one IP address ratio with IPv4 today. With IPv6 you get one address, or you get a billion.
You can't tell anymore cause you can grab thousand extra ips on the /64 lan and use it for whatever you like.
We are sure going to miss this feature. 


Joergen Hovland ENK