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

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:40:37PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Personally, I opt for a /128+/64+/56+/48 model, with a suffiently relaxed
> policy that permits /48 assignments to anything that risks being limited
> by 256 subnets.  
> 
> So typical large-scale DSL rollouts can be provisioned on an automated
> base with /56s, providing enough space for 99.99% of all customers 
> ("pick another arbitrary number").

I do agree that /56s will be enough for almost all customers. But then
you will see scenarious that people outgrow the /56 and need a new /48
and renumber AND restructure their network into this new space. THIS is
what "/48 for everone" is trying to prevent as much as possible.
Reserving a /48 space but only assigning /56 makes no sense either. A
/56 is 256 subnets only if ignoring ANY hierarchy. If you accept 2-3
levels of hierachy into the customer network, your efficiency goes down,
and 8bits of subnetting starts to smell v4ish again.

I could probably agree to /56 for residential access though. But
definately not for non-residential access like non-miniature companies,
universities etc.

Do we really gain enough by going down to /56 that is worth the hassle?

IMHO, changing the HD-Ratio is a better idea, with no downside I can
currently see (can anyone?).


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0