[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon May 9 12:11:30 CEST 2005
I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. So I would say /64, /48, /48. The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, I suspect. It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't? On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 9-mei-2005, at 9:17, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > > >and the other view: > > >/60 -> /52 > > (for networks with no router and networks with one router) > > Giving a /52 to networks that don't have a router has the potential > to burn v6 space rather quickly. (Today those networks would get a /64.) > > And why would a SOHO (small office, home office) or residential > network with just a single router need 4096 subnets (/52) rather than > 256 (/56) or 16 (/60)? > > If they really need that many subnets it's probably better to stick > at the current /48 recommendation. > > Iljitsch > > -- > Iljitsch van Beijnum - http://www.bgpexpert.com/ (updated: May 6, > 22:39:15) -- Tim/::1
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]