[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Carlos Friacas cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue May 10 14:21:52 CEST 2005
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: >>> Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What >>> are people doing there? >> >> It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that >> likes (and needs) to play with routing... >> ;-))) > > Are you the *typical* end customer...? Neither you nor me are (and I > do well with about 4-5 network segments at home right now). > > But as I can see so far, nobody is aiming for a "no more /48s!!" policy, > we're just discussiong potentially smaller assignments for the SOHO market. Yes, i know, i was just being ironnical. :-) And that was precisely my point... Almost-unmanaged network are hard to foresee using more than a handfull of subnets... > [..] >> I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be >> more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to >> grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-) > > I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be > fairly easy. Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and just stick with the /48 assignments only? I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]