[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Daniel Roesen dr at cluenet.de
Mon May 9 12:23:40 CEST 2005
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:11:30AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote: > I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen > the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. Agreed. And this prefix size should really be on nibble boundaries (but I guess noone disagrees with that). > 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? Even with /32 you can nicely run a typical access ISP with. You need more if you have any serious mass subscriber base, like residential DSL, 3G/GPRS etc. The large-size allocation to which I was involved with designing the addressing plan definately plans to give every customer a /48, even if no routed infrastructure is in place at the customer yet. Assign /48 and route first /64 out of it initially. If customer wants more, route the rest of the /48 to the customer. This works for hosting customers as well as any leased line access customer. Also for "dialup" like PPPoE/A DSL (RADIUS). I ponder wether it would make sense to write up an example addressing plan for a /32 standard allocation which people can use as a template... Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]