I think it's important we give networks fixed size prefixes to lessen the need for restructuring and renumbering when changing provider. So I would say /64, /48, /48. The ISP's who have got the /20-ish space already have planned this, I suspect. It's the ones trying to run an ISP off a /32 that haven't? On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:37:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9-mei-2005, at 9:17, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
and the other view:
/60 -> /52
(for networks with no router and networks with one router)
Giving a /52 to networks that don't have a router has the potential to burn v6 space rather quickly. (Today those networks would get a /64.)
And why would a SOHO (small office, home office) or residential network with just a single router need 4096 subnets (/52) rather than 256 (/56) or 16 (/60)?
If they really need that many subnets it's probably better to stick at the current /48 recommendation.
Iljitsch
-- Iljitsch van Beijnum - http://www.bgpexpert.com/ (updated: May 6, 22:39:15)
-- Tim/::1