Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 12:14 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6EEC1A8A3E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 85whs3-JXcSW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3511A8A28 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 05:14:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1ZK3m7-0000CZC; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:14:27 +0200
Message-Id: <m1ZK3m7-0000CZC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <20150723130715.12113.47480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55B1ED14.6030501@gmail.com> <m1ZIZ4w-0000CbC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <CAKD1Yr2z6T86gmQMPZwbgFB4mdt7=xWNuei5jaQg=vpG7-zLVg@mail.gmail.com> <m1ZJdjZ-0000CcC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20150727091241.GL84167@Space.Net> <m1ZJfOr-0000CgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <C9C3FBC4-44F3-45D2-B8C4-3725396E5D40@nominum.com> <CAPi140Mx96dBgeaCkrsDD+-J85OZDo5Di+gHTBiaGDzYK2us4w@mail.gmail.com> <20150728115944.GZ84167@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:59:44 +0200 ." <20150728115944.GZ84167@Space.Net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:14:26 +0200
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/MTvHHblElrdU9TjnGuzFkm4O8ZI>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability-01.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:14:30 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:59:44 +0200 you wrote:
>All true.  But then you excercise pressure on the prefix allocation side
>- instead of having "one /64 for that LAN segment, which is big enough
>for arbitrary number of hosts" you end up with "a /52[-ish] per LAN segment
>to cover DHCP-PD delegation to thousands of hosts".
>
>(Say, 1000 hosts, all doing DHCP-PD and requesting a single /64, you'd
>need to provision at least a /54 per segment - which will increase your
>prefix usage enormously)
>
>Is that what you want?

Say you can have at least 100 prefixes per /56. Then that should be enough for
most home installations. 

Then RIRs support a /48 for end users. So it should be easy to reach
1000 devices. I assume most business ISPs can provide a /48. Maybe even PI.

Beyond that, you are probably big enough to document the need for a bigger block
if required.