On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Mark Smith <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote:
> > The general intent of the /48 allocation is that it is large enough for > nearly everybody, with nearly everybody including all but the largest 'nearly everybody with a single site' sure. I know of more than a few VPN deployments (enterprises with remote offices) that have +1k remote sites. For these you're quickly talking about: 1) get PA (maybe, maybe not a good plan, see renumbering headaches) 2) get a large number of /48's (assume median size is 2048 - 1 /36) I know of one vpn deployment with +12k sites: a /34 I agree that a large majority of 'end sites' (enterprises) will be services with a single /48 from PA space, unless they want to multihome, or have more than 1 site and want some convenience. > of organisations. IOW, it's meant to be "nearly one-size-fits-all", to > try to ensure almost everybody gets as much address space as they'll > ever need at the time of their first request. An addressing plan for > anything less than the largest organsation that doesn't fit within > a /48 or will exceed it fairly rapidly is probably too inefficent. > > ps. Remember that I'm one of the ones advocating using /64s everywhere, > so what ever you do, don't use "ruthlessly efficient" to describe my > position - use that for the /126 or /127 crowd ;-) I'd note I'm not a 'ruthless efficiency' guy either, just 'how ops is done today' and 'there be dragons, be aware what you step into'. I think, and I'll start a fresh copy of this thread to articulate it, there have been 4-5 different issue conflated in this discussion, which is making things complicated. -Chris > > > Regards, > Mark. > >
