Awesome, Thank you Royce, the missing piece has clicked in place... :)
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Royce Williams" <[email protected]> > To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Sam Silvester" <[email protected]>, "NANOG" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:14:51 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving > out > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < [email protected] > > wrote: > > Like I said, this was my understanding.... I am glad that it is being > > pointed > > out to be in-correct.... > > > I don't have a reason for why a /64 as much as I also don't have any reason > > Why NOT.... > > > So, let me ask the question in a different manner... > > > What is the wisdom / reasoning behind needing to give a /56 to a > > Residential > > customer (vs a /64). > > Quoting RFC6177 (successor to RFC3177): > While the /48 recommendation does simplify address space management > for end sites, it has also been widely criticized as being wasteful. > For example, a large business (which may have thousands of employees) > would, by default, receive the same amount of address space as a home > user, who today typically has a single (or small number of) LAN and a > small number of devices (dozens or less). While it seems likely that > the size of a typical home network will grow over the next few > decades, it is hard to argue that home sites will make use of 65K > subnets within the foreseeable future. At the same time, it might be > tempting to give home sites a single /64, since that is already > significantly more address space compared with today's IPv4 practice. > However, this precludes the expectation that even home sites will > grow to support multiple subnets going forward. Hence, it is > strongly intended that even home sites be given multiple subnets > worth of space, by default. Hence, this document still recommends > giving home sites significantly more than a single /64, but does not > recommend that every home site be given a /48 either. > A change in policy (such as above) would have a significant impact on > address consumption projections and the expected longevity for IPv6. > For example, changing the default assignment from a /48 to /56 (for > the vast majority of end sites, e.g., home sites) would result in a > savings of up to 8 bits, reducing the "total projected address > consumption" by (up to) 8 bits or two orders of magnitude. (The > exact amount of savings depends on the relative number of home users > compared with the number of larger sites.) > The above-mentioned goals of RFC 3177 can easily be met by giving > home users a default assignment of less than /48, such as a /56. > Royce
