[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Mon May 9 12:40:37 CEST 2005
Hi, 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. > > 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? The base for this discussion isn't "an ISP that has badly planned their /32", it's Geoff Houstons estimations about how long the IPv6 address space will last, given current boundary conditions (HD ratio of 0.8, and /48-per-site). People that haven't looked at the presentation: please do so, *before* entering a heated argument without all relevant background information as for *why* we are having this discussion. Geoff's slides are here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/plenary-program-wednesday.html -> "A report from the ARIN XV IPv6 round table" -> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50-plenary-wed-ipv6-roundtable-report.pdf Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited by 256 subnets. So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers ("pick another arbitrary number"). As for the /128s: I think that providing a /64 for a dialup router, negotiating unique host-IDs with incoming PPP clients and then sending RAs for the "shared" /64 down the PPP links will work fine for /128 (auto-)assignment. I'm not sure, though, whether that's fully backed by all relevant specs. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]