Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

I’m not saying that this will apply to “every” site, and I guess that in most of the cases, if they have already a /48, they may want to use part of it the way is described in this document, not necessarily the complete /48. For example, from the /48, you may be using a /56 in a data center which has servers with tons of VMs.

So the difficulty here is to find the way to justify those cases that really need this, if there are cases that need, for example instead of a /48, a /47, /46 or /44, etc.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Gert Doering <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: lunes, 7 de agosto de 2017, 13:07
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
CC: v6ops list <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

    Hi,
    
    On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 12:35:25PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
    > Most of the RIR policies allow a shorter prefix than /48 for a single site 
    > if justified. 
    
    "If justified" has traditionally been along the lines of "number of buildings,
    number of subnets, number of aggregation levels", so, number of *networks*.
    
    "Number of hosts" has not been a justification argument in (at least)
    RIPE IPv6 policy, so that would be a fairly significant change.
    
    Personally, I would be very careful here - permitting assignments of 
    larger address blocks because we *waste* a /64 on a potentially very 
    large number of hosts in a network might cause shortage further up.
    
    And yes, I think this is extremely wastive, well over the limits of what
    is normal "do not care about wasting addresses!" level of IPv6 normal.
    
    On a subnet, having a "it is big enough for everything, no matter how
    many hosts" is a desirable property because it makes network planning much
    easier - single size fits all, focus on more interesting work.  A /64
    is already excessive here, but given that the number of subnets is
    bound by factors like "how many different purposes can you come up
    with?", "router config", etc.  I'm willing to accept a /64 here.
    
    A /64 per *host* is much less bound - while far beyond anything you can
    configure on that host, so the trade-off "waste vs. useful number of bits"
    is not reasonable for me.
    
    
    Should this topic come up in RIPE policy discussion, I'll chair the
    discussion and refrain from having an opinion, but will reserve the right 
    for a "told you so" later.
    
    Gert Doering
            -- RIPE APWG chair
    -- 
    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
    
    SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
    D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
    Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.