[135710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another v6 question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 28 00:57:16 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1101272030321.13151@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:51:03 -0800
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 27, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Jared Mauch wrote:
>=20
>> The ipv6 zealots talking about anything but a /64 for end-site are =
talking about a "business class" service. Even with my static IPs at =
home, I have no need for more than a single /64 to be used in my wildest =
dreams. I could live with ~256 ips for the future. I consider my tech =
density "above-average".
>=20
> I don't agree at all. I have 3 /64s in use in my home already. I could =
fairly easily go down to 2, but I definitely need at least 2.
>=20
> I don't want to handle people like me differently, thus /56 for all =
residential customers makes a lot of sense. I see no downside.
>=20
> --=20
> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of =
auto-topology
management that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend =
/48 instead.
Owen
