[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?
Roger Jorgensen rogerj at jorgensen.no
Mon May 9 09:14:08 CEST 2005
On Fri, 6 May 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi, > > Just one clarification. I was only trying to make an example, probably not > the best one. The idea is that a subnet is not used for a single device, of > course, but for a single set of them which are related, for example in terms > of who is accessing that network. So the clarified example will be: If the > same service provider (probably the manufacturer but it may be also a third > party company, even the ISP itself) is responsible for keeping the > maintenance of the freezer and the washing machine and the dish washing > machine, they could be allocated in a single subnet, but a different one > that the supermarket that will refill my beverage in the freezer, and a > different one that will refill the fish. > > Regarding your view of allowing a /60, I think if we want to go into that > direction is better to seek for a /56 or even better, a /52. But I'm still > convinced that we should stay with /48. Today SOHOs doesn't subnet because > the need has not come thanks, unfortunately to NAT, which avoided the > creation of innovation around Internet (those new services and applications > that will come with IPv6 and end-to-end restoration). <snip> I've been on almost all levels when it comes to use of IPv6 in practice, end-user, tunnelbroker, LAN/site provider, ISP, transit provider and I've done two mistakes since I started to use IPv6 in 99 or was it 2000... 1.) I used /127, even some /128, that was really stupid and have caused me lots of pain, /64 are the easiest way. Or even /126 for some point-to-point links. 2.) I used /64 for end-users, not even for a singel LAN did this work out, I always had to give out extra /64 for someone/something running there. So I changed to using /60 and it worked out flawless for all the typical situation, mostly end-users or LAN. not sure there is any need for defining what a site is. What I see as a more important issue are an "agreement" about other sizes than /64 and /48. I most cases are /64 too small (see above) and a /48 total waste of space. A /60 make sense now and in the next few years but I do see a need for something bigger, /56 seems to be a good choice. If you get any bigger a /48 are probably better to use anyway. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]