IPv6 Addressing Help

Steve Bertrand steve at ibctech.ca
Mon Aug 17 21:43:53 CDT 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.

-------------- 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>

More information about the NANOG mailing list