On Tue, 10 May 2005, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 01:07:11PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
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... ;-)))
Are you the *typical* end customer...? Neither you nor me are (and I do well with about 4-5 network segments at home right now).
But as I can see so far, nobody is aiming for a "no more /48s!!" policy, we're just discussiong potentially smaller assignments for the SOHO market.
Yes, i know, i was just being ironnical. :-) And that was precisely my point... Almost-unmanaged network are hard to foresee using more than a handfull of subnets...
[..]
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. :-)
I agree with that. Getting a /48 instead of "the default size" should be fairly easy.
Yep. But should we read the RFC3177 "recommendation" as policy, and just stick with the /48 assignments only? I also didnt get the renumbering issue... renumbering from a /56 to a /48 should be painless... and the "BUT" above should prevent that someone has to renumber from a /48 to a /56... ;-) 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!"