[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?

Hi,

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:11:30AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen
> the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider.
> 
> So I would say /64, /48, /48.
> 
> The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, 
> I suspect.   It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't?

The base for this discussion isn't "an ISP that has badly planned their /32",
it's Geoff Houstons estimations about how long the IPv6 address space will
last, given current boundary conditions (HD ratio of 0.8, and /48-per-site).

People that haven't looked at the presentation: please do so, *before* 
entering a heated argument without all relevant background information as
for *why* we are having this discussion.

Geoff's slides are here:

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/plenary-program-wednesday.html
     -> "A report from the ARIN XV IPv6 round table" ->
  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-ipv6-roundtable-report.pdf


Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed
policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited
by 256 subnets.  

So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated
base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers 
("pick another arbitrary number").

As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, 
negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending 
RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 
(auto-)assignment.  I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed 
by all relevant specs.

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