> > No, it gives them 16 bits for subnetting.
Everybody gets
> > 64 bits for addressing because everybody (except
oddballs and
> > enevelope pushers) uses a /64 subnet size. Since
64 bits
> are more than
> > anyone could ever possibly need for addressing and
16 bits is more
> > than an end site could ever possibly need for
subnetting,
> the /48 is
> > an ideal allocation size.
>
> As should be clear from the previous discussion, there
are
> plenty of us who disagree here, and lean towards /56
for end
> users (typically residential customers) while business
users
> would get a /48 or more based on need.
I wouldn't say that is a disagreement, more of an
extension.
In other words, many of us believe that 16 bits per end
site
is an ideal customer allocation, but feel that residential
customers in their home are not in any way penalized by
reducing this to 8 bits. They still have scope for a
significant
amount of subnetting even in extreme cases like constructing
an
inlaw suite plus operating a family business out of the
home.
I do agree that /56 per residential customer is the ideal
allocation
for a mid-sized to large ISP that has a large number of
residential
customer sites on its network. I expect that most such ISPs
will
implement a model with /48's to business and /56's to
residential
addresses. But I also expect that smaller ISPs or those who
mainly
supply business access services, will find it simpler to
just give
everyone a /48.
The only place in which people have noted that there is a
possibility
of running out of bits in the existing IPv6 addressing
hierarchy
is when they look at a model where every residential
customer gets
a /48. In that scenario there is a possibility that we might
runout
in 50 to 100 years from now. If only the ISPs with a large
residential
user population go to a /56 per residential site, then we
have solved
the problem.
--Michael Dillon
|
nethelp.no
