|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:36:01 -0600 From: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> To: nanog@merit.edu Mail-Followup-To: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>, nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <20080103090002.P38848@calis.blacksun.org> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu Once upon a time, Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org> said: > It leaves them with 65k subnets to choose from. Would a /56 make more > sense? Right now- sure- becaue we lack the imagination to really guess > what might happen in the future. Nanobots each with their own address, IP > connected everything, who knows? Assigning a /48 to everyone gives > everyone ample room and simplifies provisioning. Do you really think that today's allocations are going to be in use (unchanged) when people are building homes out of IPv6-addressed nanobots, or when people are trying to firewall the fridge from the TV remote, etc.? I understand trying to plan for the future, but if someone is setting all this stuff up, getting a new (and larger) IPv6 block from their ISP is going to be the easiest part in the process. > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for /56 > and have people settle on /64. Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries? Why not /52 or /60? /60 is not much bigger than /64, but /52 gives an end-site 16 times as many subnets as /56 while giving the ISP 16 times as many blocks as /48. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |