[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?

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