[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites

[Leo Vegoda]

Hi Jordi,

On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:12 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

> Hi Leo,
>
> Well, I see your point, but somehow disagree ...

I'm not sure I was making a point. I was trying to ask a question.

> I think with the deployment of IPv6 we will see different ways of  
> using
> subnets. Basically, many more subnets in each end-site, compared to  
> what we
> typically see in IPv4.
>
> We don't expect that all the possible interfaces provided by the 64  
> bits of
> each subnet are going to be use in each subnet, and was never the  
> intend
> with the design of IPv6, because that allows autoconfiguration,  
> privacy
> addresses, CGAs, and many more things for sure to come.
>
> I know about new technologies being developed that in fact use, in a
> residential customer, hundreds of subnets. Probably /48 seems to  
> much, but
> for example, /56 (256 subnets) is too low for those cases. I'm sure  
> that in
> case of corporate customers the number of subnets will be closer  
> to /48 than
> in the case of a residential customer, as typically business have a  
> higher
> demand for addresses.

I understand that the need for conservation is less powerful with  
IPv6 than IPv4. Nonetheless, the need for careful stewardship of the  
number space remains. I don't yet have a clear idea of what  
proportion of networks receiving a /48 prefix would ever need to  
expand their assignment from a /48 to a /47 - or a shorter prefix.  
I'm not even sure which end of the spectrum people think is likely,  
hence my question.

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this topic.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison