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