IPv6 Addressing Help

Tue Aug 18 02:43:53 UTC 2009

Ray Burkholder wrote:
>> Why is is necessary insist that using bits in a fashion that doesn't
>> require that growth be predicated on requests for additional resources
>> be considered wasteful?
>>
> 
> Don't we still need to subnet in a reasonably small fashion in order to contain broadcasts, ill-behaved machines, and other regular discovery crap that exists on any given segment?  And if we have to segment in such a fashion, the request and allocation of additional resources is a natural consequence of such containment.
> 

There are other ways around such problems. You've got larger issues if
you need to worry about this.

fwiw, I'm (in the ARIN region) assigning the value of a /56 for each
CP(E). Along side of that, I'm ensuring that the encompassing /48 is
reserved in the event that things go that way.

This ensures that each client receives a /56 minimum, but also ensures
that I can assign the rest of the /48 if ARIN enforces it, or divvy it
up appropriately from the PE to the CE in the event </48 becomes standard.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3233 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090817/596c6d6c/attachment.bin>