Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: What is a site?

[Carlos Friacas <]

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> > > Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets?  What
> > > are people doing there?
> > It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that
> > likes (and needs) to play with routing...
> > ;-)))
> Are you the *typical* end customer...?  Neither you nor me are (and I
> do well with about 4-5 network segments at home right now).
>
> But as I can see so far, nobody is aiming for a "no more /48s!!" policy,
> we're just discussiong potentially smaller assignments for the SOHO market.
Yes, i know, i was just being ironnical. :-)
And that was precisely my point... Almost-unmanaged network are hard to 
foresee using more than a handfull of subnets...


> [..]
> > I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be
> > more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to
> > grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-)
> I agree with that.  Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be
> fairly easy.
Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and 
just stick with the /48 assignments only?

I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 
should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has 
to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-)


Regards,

./Carlos
--------------                    http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html

         Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"