Current Consensus on IPv6 Customer Allocation Size
tdensmore at tarpit.cybermesa.com
Wed Aug 1 23:03:03 CEST 2012
Thanks for the link! I had actually read through it recently and found
it quite useful. I find the back and forth between /64 vs /12 on
P2P links interesting.
I've read rfc 3177, and though some of it was above my head, I couldn't
really find anything in it that really defined *why* a /48 was preferred
(GSE, 6to4, and Site Local require /48, so /48 is best was what I took
away). As far as I can tell, the layman arguments in favor go like this:
- /48 is likely to be equal to /24 (v4) bgp-wise, and anything longer is
likely to be filtered.
- /48 for *everyone* allows for uniform customer allocation size.
- It's "easy" to forsee that someday in the future people will need more
than 256 subnets in the home, and since nibble boundaries are considered
a must, then /48 is the only option.
Is that about right?
I think I'd have a hard time pitching extra cash outlay for a /28.
On 8/1/2012 1:49 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Best Current Operational Practice (BCOP) on IPv6 Subnetting:
> /48 per site is best. I would highly recommend swallowing the ~$2k/yr
> and get the allocation you need now, so that your network can grow in
> a structured, homogenous manner. Rather than fighting fires later to
> save a buck now (I mean, I have to guess that buying even one router a
> year blows that cost out of the water anyway - even a line card...).
More information about the ipv6-ops