Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: [resource-policy] AfriNIC Policy Proposal:IPv6ProviderIndependent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Fri Mar 16 09:43:19 UTC 2007
On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:12 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> Well, I see your point, but somehow disagree ...
I'm not sure I was making a point. I was trying to ask a question.
> I think with the deployment of IPv6 we will see different ways of
> subnets. Basically, many more subnets in each end-site, compared to
> what we
> typically see in IPv4.
> We don't expect that all the possible interfaces provided by the 64
> bits of
> each subnet are going to be use in each subnet, and was never the
> with the design of IPv6, because that allows autoconfiguration,
> addresses, CGAs, and many more things for sure to come.
> I know about new technologies being developed that in fact use, in a
> residential customer, hundreds of subnets. Probably /48 seems to
> much, but
> for example, /56 (256 subnets) is too low for those cases. I'm sure
> that in
> case of corporate customers the number of subnets will be closer
> to /48 than
> in the case of a residential customer, as typically business have a
> demand for addresses.
I understand that the need for conservation is less powerful with
IPv6 than IPv4. Nonetheless, the need for careful stewardship of the
number space remains. I don't yet have a clear idea of what
proportion of networks receiving a /48 prefix would ever need to
expand their assignment from a /48 to a /47 - or a shorter prefix.
I'm not even sure which end of the spectrum people think is likely,
hence my question.
I'd be grateful for your thoughts on this topic.
IANA Numbers Liaison
More information about the RPD