> On Jul 29, 2021, at 14:14 , Daniel Corbe <dan...@corbe.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 29, 2021, at 16:06, Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> t...@pelican.org wrote:
>>> On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" <l...@satchell.net> said:
>>>
>>>> The allocation of IPv6 space with prefixes shorter than /64 is indeed a
>>>> consideration for bigger administrative domains like country
>>>> governments, but on the other end, SOHO customers would be happy with
>>>> /96, /104 or even /112 allocations if they could get them. (Just how
>>>> many light bulbs, fridges, toasters, doorbells, phones, &c does SOHOs
>>>> have?) I would *not* like to see "us" make the same mistake with IPv6
>>>> that was made with IPv4, handing out large blocks of space like so many
>>>> pieces of M&M or Skittles candy.
>>> Nay, nay, and thrice nay. Don't think in terms of addresses for IPv6,
>>> think in terms of subnets. I can't stress this enough, it's the big v4 to
>>> v6 paradigm shift - don't think about "how many hosts on this net", think
>>> about "how many nets".
>>
>> Think of how many large ISP's a /3 of ipv6 effectively holds, assuming that
>> /48 per customer is the norm, and /24 up to /12 assignments for those ISP's
>> is also.
>>
>> In those terms IPv6 isnt that much bigger.
>
> I haven’t seen evidence that any RIR has allocated an entire /12 to an ISP.
> Even a large one.
I haven’t seen any evidence that an ISP has requested a /12 from an RIR. How
would an RIR issue a block that hasn’t been requested?
Owen