IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

> 
>> 
>> My frame of reference is that while we need to make the addresses big
>> enough, we also need to preserve the hierarchy.  There is no shortage
>> of addresses, nor will there be, ever, but there could be a shortage
>> of levels in the hierarchy. I assume you would like a home to have a
>> /48?  But, from my provider's /32, that is only 4 levels at the
>> assumed nibble boundary.  I think my provider could use another
>> two levels.
> 
> If your provide has more than 10,000 customers they should never have gotten a /32. The braindead notion that everyone needed to rush out and get a /32 has not helped get IPv6 deployed. The /32 value was the default one for a startup provider. Every provider with a customer base should have done a plan for a /48 per customer, then gotten the right size block to start with. Any provider with a /32 and more than 10k customers needs to do that now and swap for 'a real block', instead of trying to squeeze their customers into a tiny block due to their insufficient initial request. 
> 
ARIN proposal 121 is seeking to clarify this in the NRPM. I've
also submitted a similar proposal to APNIC and expect it to be
published shortly and discussed in Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, I won't be in Hong Kong for the discussion, but, I'm going
to try and participate remotely.

I encourage anyone facing the /32 is not enough problem at the
service provider (or anyone else for that matter) to get involved
and speak up in favor of proposal 121 and/or the APNIC
equivalent.

I intend to put forth similar proposals where necessary in the other RIRs
as well.

Owen