[off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Tue Mar 25 19:50:58 CET 2008
> But I still think that it needs to be pointed out that the standard > prefix lengths of /64 for a subnet, /48 for a site, and /32 for an > ISP, provide real benefits in network architecture and design. The /64 for subnet I can understand, as automatic address assignment relies on it. However, I think I personally would be more cautious in using such big words about the /48 and /32 limits. Sure, they're fine round binary numbers, but are they *really* anything more than that? Maybe it's time to play the "site" card? (Or hasn't that been played many times already?) Do you put a lower bound on what you call a "site"? Is a home network connected via DSL a "site"? What about a small business (sub-10 employees, say) which also uses DSL a "site" worthy of assignment of an entire /48? I can easily imagine ISPs having more then 64K (for the americans who might have a problem with math, that's 2^(48-32) :-) DSL users, and with the "one size fits all" address assignment policy outlined above, the ISP would blow through it's entire /32 by handing out IPv6 addresses to 65536 customers. > We should never make changes to this architecture without > considerable thought and understanding of the reasons why these > prefix lengths were chosen. Which, briefly summarized, were...? > IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. So I continue to see people say, but I've yet to see a justification for such broad sweeping statements which I can agree with justifies the statement. From my perspective it's *really* the same protocol done a second time with more bits, and the number of bits is *not* infinite. Regards, - Håvard
- Previous message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]