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

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:21:52PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 
> should be painless...

It isn't. Making smaller default assingments like /56 makes only sense
if you do NOT keep a whole /48 to grow the /56 to. So essetially you'll
face networks with exceed 256 subnets which then need to renumber ALL
of them. There isn't supposed to be _additional_ space, only larger
replacement.

And a network addressing plan designed to /56 and now approaching
limits _does_ look different to a /48 plan, so people _will_ have
to redesign their addressing plan while renumbering the whole network
from the old /56 to the new /48. This is all the hassle (even more!)
of IPv4... The whole point of /48 is to _avoid_ that as much as
possible.

But indeed, I don't see SOHO/home networks outgrow a /56 in the
foreseeable future. If technologies come up which do mandate/foster
high amounts of subnetting even in the SOHO/home space, the default
SOHO/home assignment size can be raised again - which will introduce
some pain, but not that much.

Giving /56s to corporate networks is IMHO just plain wrong and "IPv6
not understood".

And don't forget, upgrading your assignment from /56 to /48 WILL have a
price tag attached to it. ISPs _still_ try to squeeze out revenue from
artificial address space scarcity. As Tony pointed out, the business
agenda of "product differentiation" is a/the big driver of this move.

Providing better service than the competition is just too oldschool
it seems. :-)


Best regards,
Daniel

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