IPv6 Subnet tool

[Martin List-Petersen]

David Conrad wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> David Conrad wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I'm just not seeing the problem that assigning a /56 solves.
>>> How many /12s, /18s, /19s, and even /32s are their in IPv6 compared
>>> to IPv4?  :-)
>> Exactly the same number.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> But each of them is a *substantially* larger subnet.
> 
> 
> True.  However, despite this, current policy has resulted in consumption
> patterns that don't look all that different than with IPv4 in the
> mid-90s -- /20s, /19s, even a /12.  Of course it is stunningly unlikely
> the recipients of those prefixes would ever need to come back for
> address space, at least given current usage.  Of course, they said that
> about IPv4 too... :-)
> 
> Revisions to the allocation policies, including /56s and changing the HD
> ratio, were intended to address (pun intended) these sorts of
> observations.  I'll let others argue about whether the revisions were
> good ideas.

They didn't come back for more. They just merged or bought (with) their
competitors resulting in them having 2 or maybe 3 /8 at their disposal.
Not that they would release any of it.

Obviously this is down to 1, maybe 2, extreem examples, but everyone
gets the picture.

Hell, I'm happy that RIPE started charging similarly for PIv4, as for
PA, even though nearly half of our IP space is PI. If you have the
revenue to support for the address space it won't matter and if you are
trying to save bucks, it might make you give IPv(4|6] space back.

Anyhow. The consensus is, that any RIR, LIR or even non-affiliated ISP
using PI should adopt a sensible way of allocating space. IPv6 leaves
enough space not to mess around.

Kind regards,
Martin List-Petersen
-- 
Airwire - Ag Nascadh Pobal an Iarthar
http://www.airwire.ie
Phone: 091-865 968