Re: Extending a /64

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi,

This is really helpful for the "race to the bottom" slide I am putting
together.

This really helps run the numbers of maximum number of /48 subscribers
possible given the RIR allocation

For the massive block allocations for ISPs is it tiered like this
/32 - General Starting point for ISP allocation
/24-26 - Medium to Large
/19-20 - Exceptions and rare

Since allocations are done block wize and not linearly you have to account
for future growth so generally over allocate for growth next 20 years.  So
with that the much larger allocations.

With that being said let's say for a typical large ISP /24 - that would
yield 16M /48s.  That still is small since most large ISPs like, we Verizon
we want to scale to a billion as right now we have 150M and that's just
domestic not worldwide.  Safe best for large ISPs is we want to scale to
the number of humans on the planet so 7 Billion is a good number.  Also
that does not account for broadband.  So for Verizon as an example /48  per
human is not possible.

I think /48 per user site is sensible for the much smaller ISPS with few
million subscriber base  but I think an impossibility at least for the
larger Verizon size ISP's.

Looking on IAIA allocation link I don't see too many RIRs getting a /12

https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml

2400:0000::/12 APNIC 2006-10-03 whois.apnic.net https://rdap.apnic.net/
ALLOCATED 2400:0000::/19 was allocated on 2005-05-20. 2400:2000::/19 was
allocated on 2005-07-08. 2400:4000::/21 was allocated on 2005-08-08.
2404:0000::/23 was allocated on 2006-01-19. The more recent allocation
(2006-10-03) incorporates all these previous allocations.
2600:0000::/12 ARIN 2006-10-03 whois.arin.net https://rdap.arin.net/registry
http://rdap.arin.net/registry ALLOCATED 2600:0000::/22, 2604:0000::/22,
2608:0000::/22 and 260c:0000::/22 were allocated on 2005-04-19. The more
recent allocation (2006-10-03) incorporates all these previous allocations.

2630:0000::/12 ARIN 2019-11-06 whois.arin.net https://rdap.arin.net/registry
http://rdap.arin.net/registry ALLOCATED
2800:0000::/12 LACNIC 2006-10-03 whois.lacnic.net
https://rdap.lacnic.net/rdap/ ALLOCATED 2800:0000::/23 was allocated on
2005-11-17. The more recent allocation (2006-10-03) incorporates the
previous allocation.
2a00:0000::/12 RIPE NCC 2006-10-03 whois.ripe.net https://rdap.db.ripe.net/
ALLOCATED 2a00:0000::/21 was originally allocated on 2005-04-19.
2a01:0000::/23 was allocated on 2005-07-14. 2a01:0000::/16 (incorporating
the 2a01:0000::/23) was allocated on 2005-12-15. The more recent allocation
(2006-10-03) incorporates these previous allocations.
2a10:0000::/12 RIPE NCC 2019-06-05 whois.ripe.net https://rdap.db.ripe.net/
ALLOCATED
2c00:0000::/12 AFRINIC 2006-10-03 whois.afrinic.net
https://rdap.afrinic.net/rdap/
http://rdap.afrinic.net/rdap/ ALLOCATED

Thanks

Gyan

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 5:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> It depends on what you justify.
>
>
>
> In all the RIRs it is need based justification.
>
>
>
> The first think to understand is the difference between and ISP and
> end-user from the perspective of the RIRs. An ISP get an allocation so they
> can “assign” to customers. While end-users (corporations, universities,
> etc.), only get an assignment and can’t sub-assign to others (others in the
> sense of different organizations, even not sub-organizations).
>
>
>
> Typically, every site, for end-users will get from the RIR an assignment
> for a /48. A corporation with multiple sites, will get n*/48.
>
>
>
> Most of the RIRs start for ISPs, allocating /32.
>
>
>
> In the case of RIPE NCC, ISPs, can request an allocation of /29 instead of
> /32 for each LIR account (a single company can justify multiple LIR
> accounts).
>
>
>
> In all the RIRs, beside what I’ve summarized above, if you justify a need
> for more, you get it, no trouble.
>
>
>
> For example, if an ISP has 5.000.000 subscribers, and they make an
> addressing plan for /48 to each subscriber, they will get the prefix that
> can hold all those. In this case it will be probably a /25.
>
>
>
> I think there are some cases in EU, of bit ISPs with /19, or /20.
>
>
>
> There are several European governments that got also /24-/26 or so.
>
>
>
> The /48 is not per-human, it is per site. I did “per-human” in the
> rfc6177-bis slides, just to set an example of how big is the IPv6 space.
>
>
>
> There is a global policy for covering the release of /12 for each RIR that
> is close to exhaust their existing pools. That’s the reason, if I recall
> correctly, why RIPE NCC and ARIN already got a 2nd /12. So, this is not a
> problem at all, never mind an ISP needs a /12, /16 or whatever, if it is
> justified according to the policies (which is really easy). If an ISP needs
> a /11 and it is justified, I believe the RIR will get 2 extra /12 from IANA
> for covering that.
>
>
>
> If we want to change that (the way IANA provides the /12 to the ISPs), it
> needs a global policy, which means the same “text” need to be approved by
> the community of all the 5 RIRs. Originally, instead of /12, it was /23,
> and we changed that once the IPv6 commercial deployment started.
>
>
>
> Both IANA and the RIRs do sparce allocation, so if you got a /12 and need
> another one, actually you just get one extra bit, not a new prefix. For an
> ISP that got a /28 (for example), instead of a new prefix (if it justifies
> the need to grow the actual prefix), will get one extra bit, so it will be
> the same prefix, but /27.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 15/11/20 22:44, "Gyan Mishra" <[e-mail]> escribió:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi
>
>
>
> From the end allocation model standpoint as standard procedure is for ISPs
> to go to RIR for their allocations and not directly to IANA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments.xhtml
>
>
>
> Typically the ISP generic allocation size has been a /32 but that is
> pretty small as it yields only 64k /48s.
>
>
>
> What is the typical allocation size to ISPs?
>
>
>
> I was  trying to find?
>
>
>
> My guess is for most RIRs the standard is /24 per ISP and /32 for large
> enterprises.
>
>
>
> A /24 would yield 11.7 million /48s which is way low for ISPs for /48 per
> human
>
>
>
> The allocation for ISPs has to be at least /22 or /20 for really large
> ISPs to do a /48 per human.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-699
>
>
>
> What are the chances that in the future additional blocks will free up by
> IANA to RIR so that the large ISPs can be more like a /16 which would give
> 4.2 billon /48s per ISP.
>
>
>
> The caveat is if you go down to /16 that only gives 13 bits in total down
> to /3 split up between the RIRs so not feasible now until IANA releases
> more blocks.
>
>
>
> I think what would make sense is a /3 per RIR and then each ISP could get
> a /16 in theory but even then 13 bits is pretty small as it definitely
> won’t cover all the ISPs in a region.
>
>
>
> I am trying to wrap up “race to bottom” slide for v6ops presentation this
> week.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 2:23 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> IANA can't directly allocate to ISPs or end-users, unless the IETF
> documents a special case, which I don't think is required because it can
> perfectly follow the existing policies in the relevant RIR.
>
> You need to follow the process with the relevant RIR, according to their
> existing policies. I understand that in the case of ICAO, it will be ARIN.
>
> Even allocating a /48 to each possible human in the earth, there is not
> any problem. See slide 6 at:
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/103/slides/slides-103-v6ops-ipv6-address-assignment-to-end-sites-00
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> El 8/11/20 14:01, "ipv6 en nombre de Tony Whyman" <[e-mail]
> en nombre de [e-mail]> escribió:
>
>     The problem of the /64 limit came up in ICAO working groups earlier
> this
>     year when developing a global addressing plan for the ATN/IPS and
> there
>     would be strong support here for allowing subnet prefixes to go beyond
>     the /64 boundary.
>
>     Our problem is that we wanted to define an addressing plan that uses
> 39
>     bits to identify each aircraft, allows for a minimum of 4 more bits
> for
>     subnetting and works within the existing standards. I'll give some
>     background below for those interested in why 39 bits, but the problem
> is
>     that if you are going to allocate a /64 (deriving from a /60 MNP) to
>     each subnet on an aircraft then you need a /21 as your initial
>     allocation - and this is before you start thinking about other ATN/IPS
>     users such as drones.
>
>     In order to avoid a potential problem getting a sufficient address
>     allocation, we did look at extending into the "other 64 bits" of an
> IPv6
>     address for subnet IDs, which was looking very "unused". After all,
> you
>     can only cram in a handful of systems into the avionics bay of even
> the
>     biggest aircraft and, if you extend the addressing scheme into the
> back
>     cabin, passengers can only bring on so many mobile phones, tablets and
>     laptops in their hand luggage. 64 bits is an overkill for the host
>     identifier and, if only we could have allocated (e.g.) a /96 for each
>     aircraft subnet, then the problem would just go away.
>
>     In the end, we concluded that we could not bend the existing standards
>     to do this and did not have the desire to push for change. Hence, we
> are
>     in the process of asking IANA for a /16 for the global civil aviation
>     community. Hopefully we will get this. However, an argument is
> expected
>     given that the current policies push back against such a large
>     allocation and demand a utilisation efficiency that we will never
>     achieve. However, if we don't get a /16 and the standards stay as they
>     are, then a private address space and NAT at the boundaries may be the
>     only answer - not really what anyone wants.
>
>     I would certainly support raising the existing limit. A hard limit of
> a
>     /96 would seem to be a good idea to stop ISPs going too far. It's
>     probably also worth noting that perhaps one day every home on the
> planet
>     may require an IPv6 Prefix. That is perhaps over a billion given the
>     world's population. With densely packed address allocation that still
>     requires 30 or so bits. Once you take into account any kind of
>     geographical sub-allocation then you will need a lot more. A /96 would
>     seem to be much easier to live with than a /64.
>
>     Tony Whyman, MWA
>
>     Background
>     -----------------
>
>     For operational reasons, the ATN/IPS address allocation should allow
> for
>     a common prefix for all aircraft operated by the same airline. Network
>     diagnostics and firewall rules are often cited in support of such a
>     requirement. It is also highly desirable that there should be a common
>     prefix for all airline IPv6 Address Prefixes. Again this is to support
>     simple firewall rules. Resisting DoS attacks is extremely important in
>     our environment and these include firewall rules that prevent packets
>     from external sources being sent to aircraft unless authorised, if
> only
>     to minimise the risk of overloading limited capacity wireless
>     subnetworks. If every airline and ATC Centre has a different address
>     prefix then managing these rules will be an almost impossible task if
>     they all have unrelated prefixes. A common ICAO prefix is thus highly
>     desirable as are common prefixes for each category of address space
> user.
>
>     It is believed that 15 bits is the minimum necessary to sub-allocate a
>     prefix to each airline registered with ICAO. This leverages an
> existing
>     registration scheme and allows for a reasonable degree of growth.
>
>     There are also very good reasons for using the existing ICAO 24-bit
>     aircraft identifier as part of an aircraft''s /60 MNP i.e. to
>     sub-allocate each airline's address space to each of their aircraft.
> For
>     very good safety reasons, ATC Centre Flight Data Processors need to
>     correlate datalink messages (callsigns and 24-bit), surveillance
> reports
>     (radar and ADS-B - which also use the 24-bit scheme), voice  messages
>     (using callsigns) and Flight Plans. Basically, you don't want to
>     introduce yet another identifier into the mix and the use of
> overlapping
>     schemes improves confidence in the overall result.
>
>     There is also the small matter of backwards compatibility with the
>     existing ATN/OSI CLNP addressing scheme. This also uses an airline
>     identifier/24-bit approach to address allocation and if we keep to the
>     same address semantics then it becomes feasible to introduce the
> ATN/IPS
>     with minimum impact on the high certification environment of the
> Flight
>     Data Processor. Any alternative will cost a lot more and put back
>     deployment for several years.
>
>     So, we really are boxed in and 39 bits + 4 bits for aircraft subnets
> is
>     the minimum needed for assignment of a /64 to each aircraft subnet.
>     Hence, the need for at least a /21, which ends up as a request for a
> /16
>     when you add in other users and a desire for nibble boundaries.
>
>     On 08/11/2020 10:25, [e-mail] wrote:
>     > Starting a new thread.
>     >
>     > A problem described in variable-slaac is:
>     >
>     > "It should be possible to extend an end-user network that is only
> assigned a /64"
>     >
>     > I believe that is a problem worth looking at.
>     > This problem is not only restricted to the mobile access case, think
> connecting a host with VMs to a link.
>     >
>     > The address delegation to a site problem is intertwined with the
> autonomous networking problem of the site itself. The IETF solution is
> DHCPv6 PD + HNCP. The expectation of addressing of a network is that the
> addresses are long-lived.
>     >
>     > There are many potentional solutions:
>     >
>     > a1) ask the network operator for more address space.
>     > a2) change provider
>     > a3) introduce government regulation
>     > b1) steal the uplink /64 (64share)
>     > b2) steal multiple /64s from uplink
>     > c) overlay. use e.g. LISP to tunnel across the access ISP to connect
> to an ISP that support multi-homing and larger address space.
>     > d) MultiLink Subnet Routing. I.e. let a single /64 span multiple
> links. draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless,
> draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets
>     > e) NAT
>     > f) P2P Ethernet. Hosts are not on the same physical link, so let's
> stop pretending they are. A consequence of that is that links don't need
> subnets. Only assign addresses to hosts. draft-troan-6man-p2p-ethernet-00
>     > g) extend the /64 bit boundary. HNCP implementations do /80s I think
> (forces DHCP for address assignment)
>     >
>     >
>     > Requirements:
>     > R-1: Permissionless. Not require an action on the network operator
>     > R-2: Arbitrary topology
>     > R-3: Long-lived address assignments
>     > R-4: Support bad operational practice: flash renumbering / ephemeral
> addressing
>     >
>     >
>     > Is there interest to work on this problem?
>     > If so, suggestions for next steps?
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     > Ole (without any particular hat on)
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     >
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>


-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *



*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD