Re: Wasting address space (was: Re: Last Call: 'Considerations on the IPv6 Host density Metric' to Informational RFC (draft-huston-hd-metric))

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having  
> to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the "will  
> I ever need a second subnet" consideration, the average allocation  
> size goes down and moving to a /48 after having grown out of a /60  
> isn't too painful.

There's a certain appeal to this, to have to renumber before your
network grows too big.  Interesting suggestion.

> It's also really helpful if all ISPs use the same subnet sizes. For  
> instance, I can set up my routes as DHCPv6 prefix delegation clients,  
> so they can be reconfigured with new address prefixes automatically  
> when changing ISPs, but I still need to put the subnet bits (and  
> therefore the subnet size) in the configuration by hand, so having to  
> change that defeats the purpose of the exercise.

Which was the point of /48 pervasively?

-- 
Tim/::1

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf