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

Hi,

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 07:30:48PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks.
> I think this improves the efficiency.

"better aggregation" is actually harmful to efficiency.  How do you get
80% usage out of something that is only 55% filled, but that you need
to get aggregated into a single block?

> Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way
> LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier
> way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home
> networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs).

Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets?  What
are people doing there?

> Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today
> HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the
> contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big
> scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to
> the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-(

Please be somewhat more specific why a /56 would be a "severe restriction"
to an end user.  Vague handwaving doesn't help us find consensus here.

> On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that
> might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be
> probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional
> reasons (may be will not be IP at all).

People never assumed IPv4 would last for 30 years...  so the chance that
IPv6 will stick around for a VERY long time is quite large (if it happens
at all).

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