Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> writes:
We'll have bigger problems, and other problems in 10years time. We have probably start to use more than the 2000::/3 space for one thing. That might change the game?
as Leo pointed out: Work the numbers. Then think about 4000::/3, 6000::/3, 8000::/3, a000::/3, c000::/3.
I don't see any reason why size has to do with it. The problem is more of a ratio between size and allocated address space---and the technical knowledge around. (And no, unlike somebody else on this list I don't believe it feasible for a consumer to call in a CCIE every time they need some networked deviced hooked up.)
are work ongoing elsewhere that maybe can fix that connect-anything-anyway-you-like problem we've always had. But that's not a policy question.
I'm not sure if I get what you mean. But if you relate to the IETF homenet WG: From what I've seen they have very limited understanding of microcontrollers and apparently keep forgetting about their grandma (or whatever other archetypical non-tech end user).
[...] agree, this /64 is one of the really really good thing. It can be considered a waste of address space but it's a nice division between net-prefix and LAN-prefix :-)
What do you mean by "net-prefix" and "LAN-prefix"???
* For one server running in the cloud I got a /112, that work just fine really.
...until you do an upgrade on the server that relies on RFC 4291.
so what? I buy a service, and if the provider support me installing something that break their setup, then it's really their problem.
Pain is mine but problem is theirs to fix.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, anything but a /64 as subnet prefix length violates RFC 4291. The problem is yours.
* I have tried to use an entire /48 but failed. I tried to build my own network with VPN, routings and everything across the different servers and routers I have spread around. That /48 was big enough for me:)
Oha. So you have too many machines to fit into a /64 in a single subnet?
No, I had enough of /64 in a /48. I tried to run out of /64's but hadn't enough sites or enough machines. I really tried, even used /52, /56 etc to :-) The operating headache took me way before the address space was empty. Could gone further with automaton but that wasn't the point.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you try to say here.
* I tried to build a big routed, multisite network using a /56, that also worked upto a certain size :)
Sorry, I don't get what you want to say there.
a /56 is plenty for most cases. However I was able to run out of available /64 to use before the operating headache took me :-)
I think that if an end-user ask for a /48 then the operators _should_ provide you with a /48.
??? Cheers, Benedikt -- Business Grade IPv6 Consulting, Training, Projects Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/