nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
From: Joe Greco <jgreco () ns sol net>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:26:12 -0600 (CST)
If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed length node addressing layer 3 protocols (mainly all of them except IPv4!)) you'll know what I mean. I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of spending/"wasting" address space on operational convenience - who needs 46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!? If I recall correctly from bits and pieces I've read about early Ethernet, the very first versions of Ethernet only had 16 bit node addressing. They then decided to spend/"waste" bits on addressing to get operational convenience - "plug and play" layer 2 networking.
The difference is that it doesn't "cost" anything. There are no RIR fees, there is no justification. You don't pay for, or have to justify, your Ethernet MAC addresses. With IPv6, there are certain pressures being placed on ISP's not to be completely wasteful. This will compel ISP's to at least consider the issues, and it will most likely force users to buy into technologies that allow them to do what they want. And inside a /64, you have sufficient space that there's probably nothing you can't do. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Current thread:
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers, (continued)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Christopher Morrow (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Deepak Jain (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 22)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mohacsi Janos (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Randy Bush (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mohacsi Janos (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Ross Vandegrift (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Daniel Hagerty (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Mark Smith (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 23)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Jeroen Massar (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Trent Lloyd (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Owen DeLong (Dec 24)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Joe Greco (Dec 25)
- Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers Leigh Porter (Dec 25)