On Wednesday, 5 November, 2025 06:26, "Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG" <[email protected]> said:
> There is no possibility of canceling the "subnet" concept for business. > IPv6 subnet complexity is too much burden for businesses. I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by this, Eduard. For me, one of the benefits of v6 at the design stage is that subnetting is substantially *easier*. You don't have to worry about trying to carve up your address space to get the right number of hosts in the right places, or trade off bits of host-mask against bits of net-mask. All the subnets (and I mean LAN-type subnets here, obviously, not linknets) are /64s, there will *always* be enough host addresses. Stop thinking about host counts - it's irrelevant to the design. Simplification step 1. Now your design can purely think about how many subnets do I need, where do I need them, what do I need them for. Even a basic home-level allocation of a /56 lets you either have a flat '00' - 'ff' subnet space that you can assign a function to each value of with loads to spare, or split out into a 'location' nibble and a 'function' nibble. A business with a /48 can encode all kinds of useful information into the 16 bits of 'subnet' available - business units, security zones, multiple levels of geographical hierarchy. Or if you don't want to be that complex, you can still just work upwards from 2001:db8:1234:0::/64, 2001:db8:1234:1::/64, in the same way you did for 192.168.0.0/24, 192.168.1.0/24. There are challenges to adopting v6, sure, but I'm not clear how 'subnetting' is one of them. Cheers, Tim. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/BK74QBTIGRZ3CWKSGSJQFVBHFTL6LIXZ/
