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! James
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
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.
It *is* For infrastructure, you can use a /48 (for Nerim, I have network infrastructure, servers, corporate networks and hosting on a /48 and I have spare space) For interconnection with the custommer, you don't need any adress (link local adresses negociated by PPP are good enough ; you can use /64 for that but link local is more simple I think) For ISP, IPv6 is simple. But big ISP will have a lot of adress space because they have a lot of custommers. (NREN will have less and hosting-only ISP will have a lot less when there will be a good mh solution) -- Xavier Henner Responsable de l'exp�rimentation IPv6 Nerim -- Fournisseur d'acc�s � Internet URL: <http://www.nerim.net/>
At 17:19 +0200 13/5/02, Xavier Henner wrote:
...
For ISP, IPv6 is simple. But big ISP will have a lot of adress space because they have a lot of custommers. (NREN will have less and hosting-only ISP will have a lot less when there will be a good mh solution)
A hosting-only ISP would probably not qualify for an allocation under the new policy, since you can fit a lot of servers in one subnet. They would have to get address space from their upstream, right? Joao
Le Mon, May 13, 2002 at 05:22:22PM +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas a ecrit:
At 17:19 +0200 13/5/02, Xavier Henner wrote:
...
For ISP, IPv6 is simple. But big ISP will have a lot of adress space because they have a lot of custommers. (NREN will have less and hosting-only ISP will have a lot less when there will be a good mh solution)
A hosting-only ISP would probably not qualify for an allocation under the new policy, since you can fit a lot of servers in one subnet. They would have to get address space from their upstream, right?
That's why I said *a lot less*. Today, I think that hostina must have 20% of address space or so NREN and ISP must have 40% each (if someone has the real numbers, I would know them) With IPv6 and the new policies, ISP will have more than 80% NREN have less "customers" than ISP, and then less space Hosting compagnies will have multihomed /48s The repartition is not the same, and the HD ratios will change That's why I think that a big ISP can have a lot of space -- Xavier Henner Responsable de l'exp�rimentation IPv6 Nerim -- Fournisseur d'acc�s � Internet URL: <http://www.nerim.net/>
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),
But this is non sens and I hope that the others ISP will not do such a thing. Nerim is a small DSL ISP. We have 2001:7A8::/35 and we will give a static /48 to our custommers. It's simple, we have enough adress space (the RIPE-NNC had no objections) and it cost nothing more than dynamic adressing -- Xavier Henner Responsable de l'exp�rimentation IPv6 Nerim -- Fournisseur d'acc�s � Internet URL: <http://www.nerim.net/>
participants (4)
-
James Aldridge -
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
Pekka Savola -
Xavier Henner