[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Sat May 7 12:59:44 CEST 2005
On 7-mei-2005, at 9:50, Pim van Pelt wrote: > | In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many. > Good point. :-) > | What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for > networks that: > | - have no router > /64 > | - have one router > /48 > | - have multiple routers > /48 > I am quite happy with the current practice. Hm, I see the current situation more as /128 - /64 - /48. I agree that the last one should remain a /48. The /128 isn't workable in practice because we don't have mechanisms that can assign individual /128s like PPP IPCP in IPv4. Having /64s for networks with a router doesn't work that well because routers always have two links. Having a /48 for a very small network with one router also isn't the greatest idea ever as we may burn IPv6 addresses uncomfortably fast. See Geoff's presentation this week at the RIPE meeting: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/ presentations/uploads/Wednesday/huston-ipv6_roundtable_report.pdf The video may be online in an archive but I don't know where. I think the best way to solve this is move the /64 recommendation to / 60. This will use up more address space for people who would have used a /64, but it will save a lot on people who only have a single router and no subnets or just a handful, who would get a /48 in the current situation.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]