On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 11:11:05AM +0200, Elvis Velea wrote:
> For example, you can use a /64 to number, let's say, 100 devices that
> are in the same vlan doing the same thing and providing the same service
> but you can not number 100 different customers within a /64.

But do we want to state that? In web hosting environments, it's not
uncommon to have 100 different customers on the very same hardware, each
of them using a different IP(v6) address - and with vserver/jail type
setups, each of them is typically only using a single address (unlike VM
style setups where you might want to use "more").

Do we mandate (or even "encourage") using 100 different /64s for that
purpose? I'd say "no" :-) - let the ISP do that if they *want*, but
do not *mandate* it.

I think that was a nice way of rephrasing part of my point, thanks Gert!

Another point is that these kinds of "customers" are far more ephemeral than what I believe RIPE policy is meant to regulate.

The relationship between web site (or web virtualhost, if you like) and IP address is a many-to-many relationship:

www.oyet.no has one IPv4 and one IPv6 address, but could've had several.

www.ipv6.oyet.no could have a different IPv6 address, but still be the same "customer".

But the IPv6 address used by www.ipv6.oyet.no could also be serving www.ipv6.onepocket.no, a different "customer".

And in either case, the IPv6 address used for this purpose may not really be _assigned_ as such, but rather used temporarily, until the website(s) in question is moved to a different server or virtual server with different routing, or merely different address space segmentation.

I imagine that e.g. Amazon or similar large-scale operations would be unhappy having to segment their space in the manner I understood the proposal at first.

If the horse ain't dead yet, I'm happy to flog it a bit more by going into practical, human-readable IPv6 address segmentation for keeping address manageable. ;)

--
Jan