LEdouard Louis wrote:
> Optimum Online business only offer 5 static IP address.
>
> Where can I buy a block of Internet IP address for Business? How much
> does it cost?
Only five? Really? Our basic residential users get 18 quintillion
addresses, and business users get 65536 times that many. Tell them you
need a few more.
Actually residential users do. One /64 is not enough. On
can argue about whether a /56 or a /48 is appropriate for
residential users but a single /64 isn't and residential
ISP's should be planning to hand out more than a single /64
to their customers.
How many home users (or even small businesses) have more than one subnet at
the moment (behind NAT, presumably)? As a percentage of subscribers, what
does that equate to?
Handing out an IPv6 /56 to a DSL or cable customer should be handled much
the same way as giving them an IPv4 /29 is today -- ask, and it shall be
provided, but it's wasteful[1] to do so by default.
- Matt
[1] Just because we've got a lot of it, doesn't mean we should be pissing it
up against the wall unnecessarily. A motto for network engineers and
economists alike.
I hear this a lot, but how many "linksys default channel 6" end users
really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often then
you would think.
At our helpdesk we hear customers hanging their wireless router off their NATed PPPoA DSL modem all the time, such that its double-NATed. That things work as well as they do is a testament to the resiliency of IP (and applications and servers) in the face of NAT.
I hear this a lot, but how many "linksys default channel 6" end users
really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
~Seth
Wrong question. The right question is, how many would if reachable address scarcity weren't a factor.
Also the wrong question. The question will become, what will the home routers support. The most common expectation of home routers will decide the defaults for most ISPs.
One thing I currently dislike with implementations (and probably in the spec, though I haven't checked), is lack of support for variable PD requests. Sure, it's possible to configure radius to hand out specific prefixes, but what about variability. Many households will only need a single /64, while some will need a /60 (being nice on the nibbles). A more dynamic protocol would have been nice given that they were redesigning everything. That way a router needing only one subnet could request a /64, and then another router hooked up behind it could request a /64 proxied through the first, or perhaps when the second router asks the first, it renumbers asking for a /63, which the ISP might instead respond with a /60. A boy can dream.
You can't be wasteful with something that you know is already extremely plentyful.
We currently have 72 million billion /56:es. If we do /56:es of the current /16 being handed out and then change our mind, we can still hand out 1100 billion /56:es before we can discover this was wasteful and then we will have spent one 65536th of the address space available.
Give people a /56 and if they only use one NOW, you still won't have to handle administration of the customer when they change their mind. Current NAT boxes solve the problem of people only getting a single IP address. People adapt to the conditions we give them. When IPv6 is readily available there will be products that use several subnets in the home, if we start to just give them a single /64 there won't be a market to solve it this way, and people will continue to use a single /64. You can say you were right, there was no need, but you killed the multisubnet solution before it was even born.
@Mikael - "I agree 100% with the give them more than they know they need, so when they do need it we don't need to do anything" (Nit-we are allocating from a /3 (2000::/3) today)
@Matthew - Obviously, I (respectfully) disagree with treating IPv6 allocations that similarly to IPv4 allocations - the "v6 way" is to let the protocol encourage innovation, not stifle it ... If it turns out to be a bad idea, we can revise the procedures for 4000::/3 (although I doubt it will be a problem).
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive. Before wondering
about the capabilities of home routers.. one might wonder if there
will even be _home_ "routers" ?
The consumer-level boxes for home users that do NAT for V4, for V6
may well act more like Layer 3 bridges, and (once need for IPv4
support goes away) be simple Layer 2 bridges that can be small
lower-powered, fairly dumb devices that just act as pass-through for
the ISP router with a basic transparent firewall.
And only route/NAT for IPv4.
There are reasons to doubt that PD will be supported on consumer level
devices; or to expect devices may have only limited support for PD.
The availability of an entire /64 means users' 'internet sharing boxes'
no longer benefit from NAT or routing capabilities; the user has all the IPs
they need from the ISP, and doesn't _need_ to create their own
subnets.
NAT'ing/routing in IPv6 becomes more of a feature only
Service providers and large entities really need.
[1] Just because we've got a lot of it, doesn't mean we should be pissing it
up against the wall unnecessarily. A motto for network engineers and
economists alike.
You can't be wasteful with something that you know is already extremely plentyful.
There is no resource that cannot be pissed away, if you try hard enough.
We currently have 72 million billion /56:es. If we do /56:es of the current /16 being handed out and then change our mind, we can still hand out 1100 billion /56:es before we can discover this was wasteful and then we will have spent one 65536th of the address space available.
Philosophical:
You know, if we are just going to act as if ipv6 has only 64 bits, why didnt we just design it with only 64?
Practical:
Think of the routing table. How many /48's in a /32?
Give people a /56 and if they only use one NOW,
Give people a /96. Thats a whole internet.
Whats that? They resurrected classfull addressing for ipv6?
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive. Before wondering
about the capabilities of home routers.. one might wonder if there
will even be _home_ "routers" ?
I think you'd want to do a /60 so it's on a "nibble" boundary. But by then you might as well do a /56.
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single /64, but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are going to jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some reason that they feel makes it all unfair or that we're "thinking like ipv4 not ipv6" etc.
It's possible that home networks will gain some ability (in a standard fashion) to use more than one /64, but I doubt it - it's much easier to do resource discovery on a single broadcast domain for things like printers, file sharing etc.
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single /64, but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are going to jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some reason that they feel makes it all unfair or that we're "thinking like ipv4 not ipv6" etc.
IPv6 was designed around handing out /48s to everybody. There are 281 thousand billion /48s in the IPv6 space. We are 6 billion people on the earth. If we hand out a /48 to each, we still have a lot to spare (99.999% left), then we can decide if this was a problem or not.
It's possible that home networks will gain some ability (in a standard fashion) to use more than one /64, but I doubt it - it's much easier to do resource discovery on a single broadcast domain for things like printers, file sharing etc.
Don't think now or next year, think in 10 years. Think hundreds of devices in your home, you don't want your sensor network to be on the same subnet as your computers, and you want a DMZ, and you want your video on a separate subnet (because you have cheap switches which do not have MLD snooping) etc.
There is NO reason of scarcity to NOT hand out at least a /56 to each end user. Stop thinking IPv4 and start to think IPv6, we're going to be living with this for tens of years and you have no idea what people want to do in the future. Give them the chance to innovate and they (or someone they purchase products from) will.
It's short sighted and silly to design your service around handing out /64s to people and then you have to redesign it when demand for multiple subnets come around. Design it around /56 to begin with, and you will have solved the problem for the future, not just for now.
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single
/64, but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are
going to jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some
reason that they feel makes it all unfair or that we're "thinking like
ipv4 not ipv6" etc.
a consumer auto-provisioning system which only gives out one size?
there is not a web site on which the customer can choose dynamically?
how 20th century.
folk who think about provisioning consumers should go to paris for a
week and be a free.fr customer. brilliantly done. [ and i am sure you
can find other things to do in paris as well. ]
A /62 takes care of that unusual case, no real need for a /56 for
the average residential user; that's just excessive. Before wondering
about the capabilities of home routers.. one might wonder if there
will even be _home_ "routers" ?
I think you'd want to do a /60 so it's on a "nibble" boundary. But by then you might as well do a /56.
My personal feeling is that 99% of home networks will use a single /64, but we'll be giving out /60s and /56s to placate the 1% who are going to jump up and down and shout at us about it because of some reason that they feel makes it all unfair or that we're "thinking like ipv4 not ipv6" etc.
17% of packets leaving an ISP here in NZ were from behind double NAT. (or, they went through 2 routing hops in the home, which I suspect is fairly rare)
Why does this happen? $customer has an ADSL router with no wireless, then they go buy a "wireless router" and plug the ADSL router in to the "internet" port.
I suspect your market is not that different to NZ.
It's possible that home networks will gain some ability (in a standard fashion) to use more than one /64, but I doubt it - it's much easier to do resource discovery on a single broadcast domain for things like printers, file sharing etc.
The above mentioned sort of stuff will keep happening, I'm sure, and because the ADSL router and the wireless router are the only devices on the same subnet, no service discovery things need to happen.
I have an idea brewing to allow routers to forward PD requests. The idea would be that a BRAS/LNS only assigns a /64 for each PD request, and the customer router forwards PD requests for routers attached to their inside interface. That way, we can chain up to 16 subnets in the home. The BRAS can reserve a /60 or /56 or whatever for each customer so they are contiguous, or whatever.
I hear this a lot, but how many "linksys default channel 6" end users
really have more than one subnet, or even know what a subnet is?
By definition, every single one of them that buys wireless router, then
buys another and hangs it off the first. That happens more often then
you would think.
Isn't the traffic bridged, so that you don't have to route WINS and
other stuff? Then it's still a single subnet.
Most people don't have the skill to do this, so they just hang the second NAT box behind the first and it "works".
So the lesson from this is that any home IPv6 gateway needs to be able to both receive (from ISP) and provide PD (towards other home devices), as this is something people will want to do (because they do it today).
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts three devices behind the second?
These are weird topologies, sure, but coming up with some algorithm to handle some of them and not others is going to be too complicated, and leave some people without a workable solution.
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
I think that they have to be forwarded. What do you do if people chain three routers? How does your actual CPE know to dish out a /60 and not a /64 or something? What if someone chains four? What if someone puts three devices behind the second?
This is a CPE problem, the main homegateway can decide to dish out /64s to all other home routers, this means they can have a bunch. It also means they can't chain 3 in serial, unless the home user decides to hand out /60s to each and only have 3 of them connected to the main CPE.
These are weird topologies, sure, but coming up with some algorithm to handle some of them and not others is going to be too complicated, and leave some people without a workable solution.
This is where innovation will happen in the home market, but only if we hand them a /56 to start with.
Forwarding these requests up to the ISP's router and having several PDs per end customer is in my opinion the best way to go.
Why is this better? Why do you want to waste your tcam entries like that? A single /56 per customer makes you have the fewest amount of tcam entries in any solution I can imagine. All other solutions require more.
