[address-policy-wg] Re: /48 or /56 to 'home' end-sites?

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:54:13PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> /56's are most likely enough for most 'home end-site'. A single /56
> provides 2^(64-56 = 8) = 256 /64's.
> 
> ...
> 
> For home end-sites I believe that a /48 really is way too much.
> 
> ...
>
> One of the reasons for saying 'all endsites a /48' was that all ISP's
> would give everybody a /48, renumbering would then not involve
> replanning onces network because one didn't get enough IP space.
> Creating a difference for home and work sites could only cause a problem
> when a work site becomes a home site, but I don't see that happening.
> Home to work, in case that happens, would get more address space at that
> point, thus that is not an issue either (except for the renumbering but
> let's not think about that, that is a different ballpark ;)
> 
> Is it maybe time to look at this /48 policy and change it in the
> direction of the above that home endsites get a /56 instead of a full
> blown /48 which they will never use. Or do people think that it is fine
> and that we should not bother here at all?

So I guess people should comment on Thomas' IETF I-D...

I was just surprised that policy seemed to adversely affect the 'ease of
deployment' of a broker service.   I personally would be fine with a /56
for home use.   I do think it's important that ISPs have a common 
reference for sizes to allocate, though inevitably there will be different
offerings (ISPs will look for ways to charge more, as they do by 'selling'
IPv4 addresses today).

-- 
Tim/::1