This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): Limitting based on IP address is not useful (Was: Re: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 7 21:00:33 CEST 2005
Hi, On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:21:06AM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > 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. While I personally dislike /64s and /48s (for some other reasons that do not need discussion here, as there are good reasons for /64 and /48, and I can accept these), your argumentation is still flawed. Everybody that tells me "we will run out of IPv6 address space!!!!" has pretty obviously not done the math - just count how many /48s are there, and then do some estimation on how many people earth can suffice, and how many /48s per person for each of those we have. Out of 2000::/3. *Then* come back and tell me (with a straight face) "we will run out of IPv6 addresses because /48s are such a great waste". [..] > 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? The whole point of the /48s is that you do NOT need to argue with your LIR. You'll *always* get a /48 when changing ISPs, and that's big enough for all but the largest customers. This is why /48s are *good*. (Unless, of course, your network is too large for a /48 - provisions for that case exist). > 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. You're seriously confused about terminology and about RIPE IPv6 policy. [..] > But what about you document the need of a /40 but will only get a /48 (/47)? Show me the network plan that documents the need for a /40. 16 million independent multiaccess networks ("LAN")??? (There are some, but it's going to be "few"). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): Limitting based on IP address is not useful (Was: Re: SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): SV: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]