[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Mohsen Souissi Mohsen.Souissi at nic.fr
Wed May 11 12:10:47 CEST 2005
Hi, On 10 May, Gert Doering wrote: | Hi, | | On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: | > >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? | | That's what this discussion is about: do we want to change RFC3177 (and | thus, the RIPE IPv6 assignment guidelines) to recommend something else? ==> Here is my humble contribution to this debate. I guess that the goal should not be to replace RFC3177 by something completely different but rather by something with fewer constraints. We can indeed play on 3 rules : - adjust the HD ratio to 0.94 (I don't have the impression there's any objection to that among folks who have already expressed their opinion) - adjust the default prefix size for environment containing more that one router. The /48 default size should be reviewd but it should keep being applied to corporate networks because the number of links may potentially grow beyond 256. Conversely, there's nothing _REAL_ today that indicates that the default common soho/home network would consume more than 100 links. So respective to DHCPv6 Prefix delegation success rate, a /56 should be more than enough for the _DEFAULT CASE_. In case, a soho/home network administrator knows that they may hit that limit, the policy should allow them to get a /48 withought any bureaucratic procedures/delays. As for the problem of renumbering from a /56 to /48 for an unmanaged home network (for instance), I don't think it is really a too complex process. I hope that by the time such a problem may occurr, technical solutions for smooth renumbering will be already in place. Although, I can hear Jordi's arguments about the numerous potential uses of IPv6 in a home network, I don't believe it would apply for a significant portion of the average IPv6 users within the coming 10 years (don't ask me why 10 years and not 5 or 20 years ;-)). Thus going with a default /56 for the _DEFAULT_ case should save quite a large address space while IPv6 deployment tries to find a cruse speed... Apart from that, a /60 for a network containig only one router seems to be quite comfortable. I'm temptd to say that in that case, a reservation up to a /56 MAY be done by the ISP in order to expect the customer's network growth and ease renumebering and routing. We have been working with RFC3177 guidelines for a few years so we can afford give a try to slightly different alternative. Regards, Mohsen. | | > 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... ;-) | | Yep. | | 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 ]