On Jul 16, 2012, at 7:35 PM, Karl Auer wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04 -0400, Lee wrote: >> Each site gets a /48. Even the ones with less than 200 people. >> [...] >> Which is *boring*. Nothing novel, no breaking out of "IPv4 think" >> aside from massively wasting address space. > > It's only a waste if you get nothing for it. By using /64 everywhere you > get a more homogeneous network, easier to administer, manage, document, > maintain... There are similar advantages, writ larger, to using /48 for > every site. >
It's also a waste if you don't ever use the address and the protocol gets deprecated before a significant percentage of the addresses are allocated. Earlier in this thread, I did the math showing how it will likely, even with very liberal allocation policies, be 100 years or more before we allocate 1/40th of the total IPv6 space to RIRs. > Whether you have 2, 20, 200, 2000 or 20,000 hosts in a /64 subnet, you > have still only used 0% of it, to a dozen or more decimal places. > IPv4-think says that's a waste. IPv6-think says "great - all my subnets > are large enough". Resizing IPv4 subnets is common; resizing IPv6 > subnets will be rare. > > IPv4-think is conserving addresses. IPv6-think is conserving subnets. We > don't buy dining chairs based on the number of atoms in them - we buy > enough to seat the people who need seating. > Exactly. Owen
