On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:54:13PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
/56's are most likely enough for most 'home end-site'. A single /56 provides 2^(64-56 = 8) = 256 /64's.
...
For home end-sites I believe that a /48 really is way too much.
...
One of the reasons for saying 'all endsites a /48' was that all ISP's would give everybody a /48, renumbering would then not involve replanning onces network because one didn't get enough IP space. Creating a difference for home and work sites could only cause a problem when a work site becomes a home site, but I don't see that happening. Home to work, in case that happens, would get more address space at that point, thus that is not an issue either (except for the renumbering but let's not think about that, that is a different ballpark ;)
Is it maybe time to look at this /48 policy and change it in the direction of the above that home endsites get a /56 instead of a full blown /48 which they will never use. Or do people think that it is fine and that we should not bother here at all?
So I guess people should comment on Thomas' IETF I-D... I was just surprised that policy seemed to adversely affect the 'ease of deployment' of a broker service. I personally would be fine with a /56 for home use. I do think it's important that ISPs have a common reference for sizes to allocate, though inevitably there will be different offerings (ISPs will look for ways to charge more, as they do by 'selling' IPv4 addresses today). -- Tim/::1