On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > I think it's generally a bad idea. /48 is the design architecture for > > IPv6. It allows for significant innovation in the SOHO arena that we > > haven't accounted for in some of our current thinking. > > Q: Why are /48s everywhere a good idea? > A: Because it's the design! > > Q: Why are /48s everywhere in the design? > A? Because it's a good idea! > > This kind of crap is one of the reasons people get frustrated with IPv6 > zealotry. If people are actually interested in deploying IPv6 then by > all means, STOP BITCHING AT THEM ABOUT HOW THEY DO IT. Problems like the > wrong allocation to end users are fixable, especially given that the > vast majority of end user assignments are dynamic in the first place. > > The model I've been advocating is for ISPs (who have enough space) to > start off reserving a /48 per customer and then assigning the first /56 > from it. If after real operational experience it turns out /48 is the > right answer, you're all set. If /56 turns out to be sufficient, when > you use up all of the first /56s you can start on the first /56 in the > second /49, etc. > While I like the idea of /48s per customer ("per-nearly everybody"), I do think this approach is a good, slightly more conservative approach. Regards, Mark.