Hi Kurtis, On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:09:56 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 16 jul 2006, at 00.58, Tony Hain wrote: > > > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > I think that over those 500+ years we might even have solved routing. > In the mean time even for new encap types you will not see more than > 1-5 networks in a home. > You might be right. OTOH, imagine if your end up being wrong ! Do we really want to have to go through a subnet renumbering event for the most likely largest number of networks in the world - all residential and small businesses, say 5 or 10 years from now ? If we've got enough IPv6 address space such that we can avoid creating this potential problem in the future, and we certainly do have enough address space, then why not future proof the end-site addressing allocations against this ? The cost of avoiding this problem is virtually nothing. Along those lines, I'm curious what you (and other people who seem to be against /48s for end sites) think of the "excessive" 46 bits of address space that ethernet uses, when the reality is that no more than 12 bits of address space would probably have been plenty for the even the biggest LAN segments (I've seen one sadly) ? Bare in mind that that addressing size decision was made around 1980, when even LAN segments with 4000 devices would have been inconceivable, so even 12 bit addressing at the time would have seemed beyond "excessive". Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------