Hi, On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 07:30:48PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Quick though: Better aggregation, less fragmentation, bigger address blocks. I think this improves the efficiency.
"better aggregation" is actually harmful to efficiency. How do you get 80% usage out of something that is only 55% filled, but that you need to get aggregated into a single block?
Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs).
Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What are people doing there?
Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-(
Please be somewhat more specific why a /56 would be a "severe restriction" to an end user. Vague handwaving doesn't help us find consensus here.
On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional reasons (may be will not be IP at all).
People never assumed IPv4 would last for 30 years... so the chance that IPv6 will stick around for a VERY long time is quite large (if it happens at all). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234