Current Consensus on IPv6 Customer Allocation Size
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Aug 31 21:43:36 CEST 2012
The reall issue isn't how many subnets, and your right no one wants to
So, If we can agree there is some likely hood of more than one subnet,
then the question is how many bit do you need for a algorithmic
allocation scheme for the devices to automatically pick their subnets.
Eight bits is more than enough for a human to manage putting all the
subnets of almost any house in. But, we just said no one want to manage
it. So eight bits is kind of small for algorithmic scheme that would
cover +95% of the possibilities. Its a lot tougher problem than most
people relise, it doesn't seem like it should be but it is. There is a
lot just wired into our brains, that makes it easy for a human to adapt
to the conditions, but algorithmic approches frequently aren't all that
On 8/31/12 14:10 CDT, James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "MB" == Mark Blackman <mark at exonetric.com> writes:
> MB> More than 256 subnets in the home? Who would want to manage all of that?
> Don't be surprized to see (ether-)? peripheral lans hanging off general-purpose
> boxen, each needing its own /64.
> We also may end up with clusters-in-a-box replacing existing nodes;
> they'll need /64s for their internal lans.
> Virtual lans, conencting VMs w/in a node, could consume /64s, too.
> 65536 may be extreme, but I certainly see 257+ showing up.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
More information about the ipv6-ops