On Mon, 13 May 2002, James Aldridge wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Xavier Henner wrote:
If you *do* have 200 IPv6 customers *today* (those that pay for the service, not necessarily IPv6 service, but something), I'd surely conside r one a real player here.
But an issue is about DSL operators with 1,000,000 IPv4 customers beginning to introduce IPv6 services..
I don't see any issue with DSL operators. Can you explain it ?
With HD ratio of 80%, the operator would require a /23.
Just because a HD ration of 80% is the minimum utilisation required to get a subsequent allocation, this doesn't mean that higher utilisation can't be achieved in some (and shouldn't be an aim in all) cases.
I can imagine DSL operators offering /64 (single subnet) and /128 (single host) assignments to some customers (in the same way that single IPv4 addresses are often assigned now), in which case these 1,000,000 customers could be handled with an allocation of between a /39 and a /103 while maintaining an HD ration of 0.8 within that allocation - i.e. one /32 would be more than enough!
IAB/IESG recommendation state /48 should be used in scenarios like this. With earmarked allocations, as there would be no need to reserve space for infrastructure etc., a higher percentage than 80% would be easy to achieve. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords