On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I like
wasting addresses :)
That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction.
For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers generally have
a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning: for a customer that
only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not feasible to create a
separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of addresses. But invariably,
these customers on shared subnets grow, so over time the logical subnet
gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks that are shared by a relatively
large number of customers, and because of resistance to renumbering, it's
impossible to fix this later on.
I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My
earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly
point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses. In
that case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or
at the maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense.
jms
