Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6addre
- To: Terence Zhang YH <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6addresses
- From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:49:04 -0500
- Cc: "<sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <516163216.13582 at cnnic dot cn>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
/96 isn't enough for residential IMHO. I believe residential should get a /48 just like any other end site.
The reason for /64 subnets is to enable us to move away from host-count based networks and apply a one-size fits all approach to network segmentation and get away from fragmented subnets that outgrow their prefixes.
While multiple networks per household (let alone 65,536 of them) may seem profligate today, there are future possibilities that will be hindered by stingy residential allocations and there is no actual benefit to the Internet from such conservative measures in IPv6.
It is somewhat unfortunate that APNIC has selected a pricing model which, by it's very nature encourages providers to be arbitrarily stingy with Address space.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:53, "Terence Zhang YH" <zhangyinghao at cnnic dot cn> wrote: