At 17:53 +0300 13/5/02, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Xavier Henner wrote:
Le Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:43:18PM +0300, Pekka Savola a ecrit:
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 consider 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.
and ? There is enough adress space for that. DSL lines will be used for home networks, and home networks are one of the reasons for the /48.
Sure, if you go ask IANA for more (considerably more).
I'd like to see the faces of RIR hostmasters when a few DSL/dialup etc. ISP's hand in address applications for their whole DSL/dialup service line..
I suspect they wouldn't even blink and just hit the "approve" button. It is does not appear realistic to expect ISPs to "interview" each customer and ask them whether they intend to subnet or not. Everyone will probably end up with a /48: it reduces costs for the ISP. In this context who are the RIRs to argue about what is a site and what is not a site when handling an LIR request? Anyway, the argument has been that if you give out a /32 to each ISP, you need 2**29 ISPs (a lot) to exhaust prefix format 001 (not counting 6to4 and 6bone space which also inhabit that space). The problem does not seem to be conservation, it is scalability of the routing mesh. Joao