Pekka, Dale, kre, others, I consolidated several postings into one.... >>> Dan Lanciani wrote: >>> An obvious reason would be that the one who wishes to subnet >>> the /64 is not the same one who should have used a /48, with >>> the former one having little control over the latter one.
>> Michel Py wrote: >> A dial-up connection gets a /48..... > Pekka Savola wrote: > No, dial-up connection _should_ get a /48. Pekka, You are correct here. Since we are still in the early stages of deployment, it would be worth fixing it now. > And also consider e.g. dsl/dial-in internal to the > company: they, for practical reasons, must get /64. > Dale Sesvold wrote: > This has been going on for quite and while. And I keep asking > myself -- Why not /60 for dialups? Its on a nice nibble and gives > a good handfull of subnets for the SOHO. Absolutely. If you dial into your company, there is nothing that I know of that says you must get a /64. The allocation of the SLA bits is at the discretion of the company's network administrator, and allocating a /60 to the small number of sick individuals such as myself that insist on having subnets in their home is perfectly in line with RFC2373. > Pekka Savola wrote: > IMO, 2) adds no complexity. Poor choice of words. What is the word you would use to qualify violating RFC2373? > I hope I made the problems with at least 4) sufficiently clear. You have. As I said, I find your draft excellent, overall. Maybe a good canditate for a BCP. > kre wrote: > But I dial into my university (and I have a routed net in my house, > as do many on this list I guess). That would be interesting to know, actually. I think that most of us have an overkill setup at home, but I still have a single subnet. (I actually bridge things such as the ATM PVC to manage the DSL modem into the main subnet). However, I have an idle ethernet interface on my router that I will likely make a separate subnet. > (though very few current dial in users actually get more than /32 - > just a few of us). Same idea: These few of you can get a /60. A couple of beers with the network admin (when it's not you) typically can arrange that. I teach at University of California, I have my special drop behind the firewall. Two Fosters. You and I represent 1/1,000,000th of the population in terms of home setups. We should adapt to that fact, instead of trying to bend the standards to fit our needs. > But with a /64 allocated to me, and your theory of subnetting, how > do I manage to number my house? With a /64, you don't. And this is the point I am trying to make: you should get bigger. > And no, do not tell me to use a switch and a flat network, that > isn't possible, and even if it were, I wouldn't do it. Agree, I made that point myself a short while ago. > Pekka Savola wrote: > Anyway, I see why people see /126 and such as lucrative: they need > to assign only _one_ /64 for all point-to-point links. There might > be e.g. a couple of hundred of them, and even though 200 of them > could fit fine to 2^16 subnets, you'd still have to define the > addressing a bit more carefully. Actually, I don't see it that way. The /126 way: 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:BABE::/64 is the block for p2p links 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:BABE::/126 link 0 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:BABE::4/126 link 1 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:BABE::8/126 link 2 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:BABE::C/126 link 3 The /64 way: 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE::/52 is the block for p2p links 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE::/64 link 0 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:1::/64 link 1 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:2::/64 link 2 3FFE:BEEF:CAFE:3::/64 link 3 Personally, I find the /64 way simpler. In the example above, it eats 1/16th of the /48 and allows for 4,096 links. Organisations with more than 4,096 links could use /51 or /50 and, if needed, request a /47 or a /46. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
