|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum
>-----Original Message----- >From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:29 PM >To: Iljitsch van Beijnum >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: It's Ars Tech's turn to bang the IPv4 exhaustion drum > >On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >> On 18 aug 2008, at 21:18, Justin M. Streiner wrote: >> >>> Just because IPv6 provides boatloads more space doesn't mean that I >>> like wasting addresses :) >> >> That kind of thinking can easily lead you in the wrong direction. >> >> For instance, hosting businesses that cater to small customers >> generally have a lot of problems with their IPv4 address provisioning: >> for a customer that only needs one or a few IPv4 addresses, it's not >> feasible to create a separate subnet, because that wastes a lot of >> addresses. But invariably, these customers on shared subnets grow, so >> over time the logical subnet gathers more and more IPv4 address blocks >> that are shared by a relatively large number of customers, and because >> of resistance to renumbering, it's impossible to fix this later on. > >I don't have a problem with assigning customers a /64 of v6 space. My >earlier comments were focused on network infrastructure comprised of mainly >point-to-point links with statically assigned interface addresses. In that >case, provisioning point-to-point links much larger than a /126, or at the >maximum a /120 seems rather wasteful and doesn't make much sense. Actually, in most cases - you would assign customers more than a /64. *Hopefully* a /56 as the smallest ... ~/48 for enterprises ... > >jms /TJ
|