[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] What is a site?

On 7-mei-2005, at 9:50, Pim van Pelt wrote:

> | In programming, there are only three values: zero, one and many.

> Good point.

:-)

> | What we need to do is come up with a good prefix size for  
> networks that:

> | - have no router
>   /64
> | - have one router
>   /48
> | - have multiple routers
>   /48

> I am quite happy with the current practice.

Hm, I see the current situation more as /128 - /64 - /48.

I agree that the last one should remain a /48. The /128 isn't  
workable in practice because we don't have mechanisms that can assign  
individual /128s like PPP IPCP in IPv4.

Having /64s for networks with a router doesn't work that well because  
routers always have two links. Having a /48 for a very small network  
with one router also isn't the greatest idea ever as we may burn IPv6  
addresses uncomfortably fast. See Geoff's presentation this week at  
the RIPE meeting: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/ 
presentations/uploads/Wednesday/huston-ipv6_roundtable_report.pdf

The video may be online in an archive but I don't know where.

I think the best way to solve this is move the /64 recommendation to / 
60. This will use up more address space for people who would have  
used a /64, but it will save a lot on people who only have a single  
router and no subnets or just a handful, who would get a /48 in the  
current situation.