Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?

Once upon a time, Donald Stahl <doncalis.blacksun.org>
said:
> It leaves them with 65k subnets to choose from. Would a
/56 make more 
> sense? Right now- sure- becaue we lack the imagination
to really guess 
> what might happen in the future. Nanobots each with
their own address, IP 
> connected everything, who knows? Assigning a /48 to
everyone gives 
> everyone ample room and simplifies provisioning.

Do you really think that today's allocations are going to be
in use
(unchanged) when people are building homes out of
IPv6-addressed
nanobots, or when people are trying to firewall the fridge
from the TV
remote, etc.?  I understand trying to plan for the future,
but if
someone is setting all this stuff up, getting a new (and
larger) IPv6
block from their ISP is going to be the easiest part in the
process.

> I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56
than push for /56 
> and have people settle on /64.

Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?  Why not /52 or
/60?  /60 is
not much bigger than /64, but /52 gives an end-site 16 times
as many
subnets as /56 while giving the ISP 16 times as many blocks
as /48.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadamshiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet
Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough
trouble.

> > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on
/56 than push for 
> > /56 and have people settle on /64.
> 
> Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?

Look, why are we arguing about this? Why not split
the difference? If /48 is too big and /64 is too small,
let's go halfway and use /56, OK?

This has the advantage that it is on a 4 bit nibble 
boundary which makes it the boundary between network
and interface much clearer in writing
2001:3ff3:effe:1200::0/56 
If you wrote 2001:3ff3:effe:12a0::0/56 then I would 
immediately see that there are too many bits in the network
portion. It also avoids a messy situation with reverse
DNS delegations.

In the end, the decision had to be made to but the boundary
somewhere, and with 16 bits to be divided plus the need to
use 4-bit boundaries, the choices were (4,12), (8,8), and
(12,4). Split the difference was the least objectionable.

ARIN's decision on this boundary point has since been
accepted
by two other RIRs, so it seems to be community consensus
now.

--Michael Dillon

> Do you really think that today's allocations are going
to be in use
> (unchanged) when people are building homes out of
IPv6-addressed
> nanobots, or when people are trying to firewall the
fridge from the TV
> remote, etc.?
I certainly hope not- but then again I never thought IPv4
would be around 
this long either.

> I understand trying to plan for the future, but if
> someone is setting all this stuff up, getting a new
(and larger) IPv6
> block from their ISP is going to be the easiest part in
the process.
You're right of course.

> Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?  Why not
/52 or /60?  /60 is
> not much bigger than /64, but /52 gives an end-site 16
times as many
> subnets as /56 while giving the ISP 16 times as many
blocks as /48.
Because byte alignment makes for shortcuts in routing
softare/hardware 
allowing higher speeds? Because ARIN says so? 

-Don