IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sat, 21 August 2010 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBE83A67F8 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ezrlIaJN2SM for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6473A6838 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:48:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Omfxx-000BUD-VN for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 04:46:01 +0000
Received: from [2a00:801::f] (helo=uplift.swm.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <swmike@swm.pp.se>) id 1Omfxr-000BTi-Qs for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 04:45:56 +0000
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 40D16A1; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:45:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB14A0; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:45:54 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 06:45:54 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
cc: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05
In-Reply-To: <188C11C5-CDBA-4213-83AC-453AE06ADAD5@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1008210642111.8562@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <D74F3837-E115-49FB-A9AB-5E0C53406621@tony.li> <C0AC8FAB6849AB4FADACCC70A949E2F1058062E62F@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <188C11C5-CDBA-4213-83AC-453AE06ADAD5@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Fred Baker wrote:

> I think there is a great reason to suggest that access and transit 
> networks to offer their downstreams /48, /52, /56, and /60 options at 
> various costs.

I can understand the /48 and /56 options (for corporate and residential 
respectively), but I don't really get the /52 and /60. What is the cost 
difference to the ISP that warrants a different end user price for these 
services, and isn't it just an extra cost to switch the user between these 
services (reprovisioning) when their needs change?

I believe in the "give 99% of the people what just works in the long run 
if it doesn't cost me extra" method, and I see it as sompler operationally 
to just offer /56 to residential users instead of /60 AND /56.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email