[ipv6-wg] 96 more bits... time for some magic after all?

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand
<bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:
> Hi Roger and list,
>
> On Fri, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
>> One way to waste is to give every single customer a /48 when you are
>> really really big. /56 work just fine really, even for techies like me :)
>
> Sorry, but I disagree on that.  A /56 is fine for today's requirements,
> but if this hype about the "Internet of Things" really takes off and you
> want to put things into different subnets, a /56 may occasionally be a
> problem even for consumer households.  Not today, but think anything
> from ten to fourty years.

We'll have bigger problems, and other problems in 10years time. We
have probably start to use more than the 2000::/3 space for one thing.
That might change the game?

I do think /56 is fine for most thing, really for most thing. But if
someone want to use /48 just to be sure. Fine let them do that. If a
user want a /48 instead of /56, then the operators actually _should_
hand it out.


<snip>
>> But you have to be big to get into that trouble.
>
> I don't see any reason why size has to do with it.  The problem is more
> of a ratio between size and allocated address space---and the technical
> knowledge around.  (And no, unlike somebody else on this list I don't
> believe it feasible for a consumer to call in a CCIE every time they
> need some networked deviced hooked up.)

are work ongoing elsewhere that maybe can fix that
connect-anything-anyway-you-like problem we've always had. But that's
not a policy question.


>> There was major discussion just to get that /56 into the documents.
>> Upto that point there was /64 pr.LAN, /48 for the rest. Now we're relaxing
>> it even more. Are discussion on moving away from /64's on the wire to...
>
> If /64 is given up, all sorts of shit will happen.  It has been part of
> the specs for long enough that a number of implementations will rely on
> it.  It's not just autoconfiguration, but when it comes to embedded
> system/microcontroller implementations, changing that is rather
> difficult.
>
> Additionally, anything that can be (mis-)configured exponentially adds
> (or rather, multiplies) to the frustration potential for end users.

agree, this /64 is one of the really really good thing. It can be
considered a waste of address space but it's a nice division between
net-prefix and LAN-prefix :-)


<snip>
>> * For one server running in the cloud I got a /112, that work just fine really.
>
> ...until you do an upgrade on the server that relies on RFC 4291.

so what? I buy a service, and if the provider support me installing
something that break their setup, then it's really their problem.

Pain is mine but problem is theirs to fix.


>> * Somewhere else I'm using a /50 on the wire, that also work just fine.
>
> Same issue.  Yes, at least some implementations support that right now,
> but you shouldn't rely on that.  Additionally, for whoever may have to
> run that system further later on you set up some ugly surprise that way.

again, so what? I've done worse use of the IPv6 space over the years
and _only_ thing that bit me really hard was the /127 problem ages
ago. But we got around that to, and it bit me because I did things I
wasn't supposed todo:)

Again - operators choice of operating their own network.


>> * I have tried to use an entire /48 but failed. I tried to build my
>> own network with VPN, routings and everything across the different
>> servers and routers I have spread around. That /48 was big enough for
>> me:)
>
> Oha.  So you have too many machines to fit into a /64 in a single
> subnet?

No, I had enough of /64 in a /48. I tried to run out of /64's but
hadn't enough sites or enough machines. I really tried, even used /52,
/56 etc to :-)
The operating headache took me way before the address space was empty.
Could gone further with automaton but that wasn't the point.


>> * I tried to build a big routed, multisite network using a /56, that
>> also worked upto a certain size :)
>
> Sorry, I don't get what you want to say there.

a /56 is plenty for most cases. However I was able to run out of
available /64 to use before the operating headache took me :-)

I think that if an end-user ask for a /48 then the operators _should_
provide you with a /48.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no