Plusnet IPV6 Address allocation
Quote from: _CN_
Quote from: benoh You *should* be assigned a /56* from your ISP
Thats what we've been testing
What is the rationale for allocating a /56 when /64 is a whole subnet in IPv6 world.
I know that there is a lot of space available, but address conservation is still a worthy cause. Why not /64 as the standard offer for retail with /56 easily available for those who ask?
Quote from: MrToast What is the rationale for allocating a /56 when /64 is a whole subnet in IPv6 world.
I know that there is a lot of space available, but address conservation is still a worthy cause. Why not /64 as the standard offer for retail with /56 easily available for those who ask?
On that subject, is /60 a valid mask ?
That would still give users 16 networks to play with, and I doubt if there are many home or small businesses that need more than that.
Quote from: MJN A /56 represents a happy medium between /48 and /64 that can cover everything from a single end user right through to decent sized commercial customers and you should never have to reasign when customer's requirement (inevitably) change. Such an approach far outweighs any benefit of address conservation which really is a consideration that we're almost leaving behind to the IPv4 world.
Remember: The current global unicast address block represents on 1/8th of the total number of addresses and so if it turns that that this approach does not work as expected (i.e. conservation of addresses is more important than assumed) then we've still got 7/8ths remaining space (or 5/8ths given special-use reserved blocks) with which to take a completely different approach.
Yes, the vastness of the address space is something I'm still struggling to get my head round - and the helpdesk guys at work are not looking forward to dealing with customers that struggle to type "ping 192.168.1.1" correctly
Doing the sums, if an ISP gets a /32, and hands out /48s, then they get to support 65k customers. Hand out /56s and they get to support 16M customers - each of whom can still have 256 /64 subnets in use. In the UK I can't see any single ISP having more than 16M customers
And if we are only using 1/8 of the address space for those /32s at the moment, then that allows for 1/2 a billion ISPs - though there are some of the same issues that mean we can't use all of the IPv4 address space. That ought to keep us going for now.
I just still can't get my head round the idea of having all that address space (a /56) to myself
I bet some ISPs still charge extra for blocks though
Hi Simon,
Yes, but...
Now, or in five, ten, years time? The fact is we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to the trade-off between flexibility/suitability and address 'wastage' and even by not pushing today's network-enabled capability it is not hard to imagine scenarios where 16 subnets would be inadequate e.g. homes with separate subnets for fixed clients, wireless clients, guests, domestic appliances, security system, heating control, smart meters, etc. Sure, such homes may be few and far between right now but the criticality of our IPv6 strategy will come into its own not today but for tomorrow's networks.
I'm not suggesting that all customers will have such requirements, indeed how many will is something of a moot point - whether it is none, some, most or all matters little if we can implement a simple strategy that fits (nearly) everyone without pain.
To put it another way, we should ask ourselves what benefit would a /60 allocation bring?
If it helps, I'd say that's the #1 hurdle we've all had/got to get over. In my view one of the biggest mistakes with IPv6 is the name - it is more than just a new version of an existing protocol. Indeed it could be argued there are more differences than similarities, particularly if you take out the backporting of IPv6 capability that has found its way into IPv4. If it had had a completely different name perhaps then we'd find it easier to leave our IPv4 'habits' behind!
Indeed - that's why a /56 makes so much sense. ISPs will always get (at least) a /32 and so carved up into /56's gives the perfect scenerio of a simple address strategy that gives maximum flexibility to all the customers an ISP can envisage supporting.
Make the most of it as I'm sure the novelty will eventually wear off!
Mathew
Quote from: SimonHobson On that subject, is /60 a valid mask ?
Yes, but...
Quote That would still give users 16 networks to play with, and I doubt if there are many home or small businesses that need more than that.
Now, or in five, ten, years time? The fact is we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to the trade-off between flexibility/suitability and address 'wastage' and even by not pushing today's network-enabled capability it is not hard to imagine scenarios where 16 subnets would be inadequate e.g. homes with separate subnets for fixed clients, wireless clients, guests, domestic appliances, security system, heating control, smart meters, etc. Sure, such homes may be few and far between right now but the criticality of our IPv6 strategy will come into its own not today but for tomorrow's networks.
I'm not suggesting that all customers will have such requirements, indeed how many will is something of a moot point - whether it is none, some, most or all matters little if we can implement a simple strategy that fits (nearly) everyone without pain.
To put it another way, we should ask ourselves what benefit would a /60 allocation bring?
Quote Yes, the vastness of the address space is something I'm still struggling to get my head round
If it helps, I'd say that's the #1 hurdle we've all had/got to get over. In my view one of the biggest mistakes with IPv6 is the name - it is more than just a new version of an existing protocol. Indeed it could be argued there are more differences than similarities, particularly if you take out the backporting of IPv6 capability that has found its way into IPv4. If it had had a completely different name perhaps then we'd find it easier to leave our IPv4 'habits' behind!
Quote Doing the sums, if an ISP gets a /32, and hands out /48s, then they get to support 65k customers. Hand out /56s and they get to support 16M customers - each of whom can still have 256 /64 subnets in use. In the UK I can't see any single ISP having more than 16M customers
Indeed - that's why a /56 makes so much sense. ISPs will always get (at least) a /32 and so carved up into /56's gives the perfect scenerio of a simple address strategy that gives maximum flexibility to all the customers an ISP can envisage supporting.
Quote I just still can't get my head round the idea of having all that address space (a /56) to myself
Make the most of it as I'm sure the novelty will eventually wear off!
Mathew
So everything gets a static address?
