This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Tue May 10 14:07:11 CEST 2005
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote: >> Moving the HD-ration seems to me more useful in terms of managing the way >> LIRs get their prefix, while changing the end-user prefix, is the easier >> way, but the most hurting one in terms of facilitating the grow of home >> networks (which in turn means innovation and more business for ISPs). > > Is anybody envisioning home networks with more than 100 subnets? What > are people doing there? It is very obvious to me... every household has a network engineer that likes (and needs) to play with routing... ;-))) >> Just look for the big allocations (/19, /20). They are fair with the today >> HD-ratio, but are they realistic ? I'm not asking to replace those, on the >> contrary, I'm happy that some people show clear deployment steps at a big >> scale, but what I don't think we should do now is a restriction, again, to >> the end users. If so, then let's go directly to NAT with IPv6 :-( > > Please be somewhat more specific why a /56 would be a "severe restriction" > to an end user. Vague handwaving doesn't help us find consensus here. I've already expressed that the current /48 is a restriction -- i would be more in favour of allowing LIRs to assing /56s, BUT allowing end-users to grow upto /48s without any questions asked. :-) >> On the other hand, do we really believe is a problem to have a protocol that >> might last for "only" 60-100 years? I don't really think so, as it will be >> probably replaced in 40-50 years already, because many more additional >> reasons (may be will not be IP at all). > > People never assumed IPv4 would last for 30 years... so the chance that > IPv6 will stick around for a VERY long time is quite large (if it happens > at all). IPv6 is already deployed in a very small subset of the public IPv4 Internet's nodes. Really, i'm a bit more concerned now about seeing that subset grow... But if IPv6's time span starts to be limited, i would rather work on IPv-whatever-next deployment :-) (my 2 cents and a swedish-half-crown...) Regards, ./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (150665/657), naming (millions) and... people!"
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: What is a site?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]