Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 Address Planning

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Wed Aug 10 12:34:59 2005

On 10-aug-2005, at 18:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:

IPv6 allocations in the host portion (with /64 boundaries) are
sparce, even for the largest networks.  The number of hosts becomes
unimportant.  The question we need to ask is how many independant
subnets will they need.

This is why many people are proposing a /56 for home users, as it
gives you 256 subnets.  Still more than most people will need.

Others have proposed /52 and /60, since many want to claim DNS is
easier if done in nibbles.
And the extra precision offered by the intermediate values isn't really required at this point in the discussion. :-)

I'm very much oppossed to /56 because it's still more than most users need. In and of itself that doesn't matter, but it's also less than what some users need. This creates the situation where people try to make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. I.e., /56 provides too much potential for shooting yourself in the foot.

I think we should go for /60 for (presumably) one-router networks. That's still 3 to 5 times as many subnets as most of those will need. Anyone else should get a /48.

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.