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

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 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?).

I agree with Daniel here (wow..:), though I'd prefer to keep our 
finger out of /48 boundary even for residential use.

I guess most people failed to register the statements in the 
presentation like:

  "This is a highly speculative exercise."
  "__If__ this is looking slightly uncomfortable..."
  etc.

If the goal was to allow the more (broadband) ISPs to use the default 
allocation sizes, using something like /56 might be worth considering. 
But this doesn't seem to be the goal.  It seems to me that beyond a 
certain point,
  1) HD ratio needs to tightened (that is, if you have 10M customers,
     you shouldn't really need 1000M /48's.), and/or
  2) The more is requested, the more the ISPs have to show evidence of
     their current usage base, i.e., a startup ISP in China couldn't
     claim 100M customer base in 2 years.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings