James Knott
[1. text/plain]
Rüdiger Meier wrote:
WTF The point was that you have only 256 ::/64 subnets. If you have 6000 users you can't give every user a whole ::/64. This fact would be even more than just a valid reason to give each of them less than ::/64.
The IPv4 Internet manages to get by with only 2^32 or about 4 billion addresses and some of those are reserved and not available for ISPs to hand out. If every ISP handed out /64 subnets, then there would be enough for 2^61 subnets (only 1/8 of the IPv6 address space is currently allocated for public unicast addresses). That's 2^29 or 537 million times the entire IPv4 address range. That should be sufficient for quite some time. Even if /48 subnets are issued, there's still 2^45 or 2.5 x 10^13 of them. Thats 8192 times the number of IPv4 addresses. So, don't worry about running out of address space, if /64 subnets are handed out.
Are you IANA? So tell me, how would you split your /56 amongst 6000 users so that each and every one of them gets a /64?
And morever if you can't give everybody a whole subnet then you probably want to restrict every user to a single IP because you as the ISP have to log the user/IP/time map. (At least in Germany you have to do this). Logging this map would be much harder if these 6000 users are using random adresses from the shared subnet.
Compare that to what happens now with IPv4 and NAT. The ISP cannot monitor each individual computer behind the NAT router, only the aggregate traffic from the router. Same thing with IPv6, just monitor all the traffic coming from the customer's router. I have a cable
You obviously haven't had the joy of working in a network where the use of _every_ IP address (even temporary ones and 192.168. private ones) require prior written permission. Technically there is no problem (just effort) to keep track of users, noone is doubting that. Red-tape is the problem, and you're not exactly helping with claims like `just monitor all traffic' You seem to forget that this has to be configured, a BGP route to your AS (or a part of it) has to be established, paperwork has to be done if that part of the AS is to be routed differently, etc. Again, what works for you in your 10-100 hosts network within seconds takes hours/days/weeks in a larger network, and more importantly coordination. Honestly, how many network operator monitoring setups have you transitioned to fully support IPv6 of late? I know people who have, and they assured me it's more than `just monitor a mac address'.
modem here. It has it's own IP address and a MAC address that's visible to my ISP. Either could be used for traffic monitoring in the same manner as currently done when someone uses NAT on IPv4. Further, giving a customer, who has more than one computer, a single address will require them to use NAT, which is not supported in IPv6.
You still seem to get the wrong end of the stick, you're lending your customer a part of *your* network address space, NAT is different of course, because NAT is usually performed in address space that doesn't belong to the ISP/network operator and so, naturally, they don't have or claim control over what you do in *your* network. Again, whois(1) your /56 and tell me who owns it, and then tell me again who should have the right to control that part of the v6 internet. They may grant you the right, temporarily or permanently, but no ISP is obliged to grant you a fully routed /64. ASNs are the *only* way to legally enforce your rights and transit to ASNs (along with the BGP entries and whatnot) isn't cheap. Also, you haven't surveyed your local ISPs about native v6 connectivity lately, have you? A customer with more than one computer is happily encouraged to buy the fully routed /64 package. Or a /48. Or buy transit to your own AS. Not the cheapest options these days :( but competition will mitigate that I hope. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org