Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
Chris Adams
cmadams at hiwaay.net
Thu Jan 3 14:36:01 UTC 2008
Once upon a time, Donald Stahl <don at calis.blacksun.org> said:
> It leaves them with 65k subnets to choose from. Would a /56 make more
> sense? Right now- sure- becaue we lack the imagination to really guess
> what might happen in the future. Nanobots each with their own address, IP
> connected everything, who knows? Assigning a /48 to everyone gives
> everyone ample room and simplifies provisioning.
Do you really think that today's allocations are going to be in use
(unchanged) when people are building homes out of IPv6-addressed
nanobots, or when people are trying to firewall the fridge from the TV
remote, etc.? I understand trying to plan for the future, but if
someone is setting all this stuff up, getting a new (and larger) IPv6
block from their ISP is going to be the easiest part in the process.
> I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for /56
> and have people settle on /64.
Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries? Why not /52 or /60? /60 is
not much bigger than /64, but /52 gives an end-site 16 times as many
subnets as /56 while giving the ISP 16 times as many blocks as /48.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list