Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Nanites, window blinds, and soda cans, I can believe. Molecules, I tend to doubt.

I think we will see larger network segments, but I think we will also see greater separation of networks into segments 
along various administrative and/or automatic aggregation boundaries. The virtual topologies you describe will likely 
also have related prefix consequences.

Owen

On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:39 AM, Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > Also, claiming that 90% will never have more than 2 or 3 subnets simply displays a complete lack of imagination.
>
> On the contrary, I believe that the increase in the potential address pool size will lead to much flatter, less 
> hierarchical networks - while at the same time leading to most nodes being highly multi-homed into various virtual 
> topologies, thereby leading to significant increases of addresses per node.
>
> A 'node' being things like molecules, nanites, window blinds, soda cans, etc.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>                   Equo ne credite, Teucri.
>
>                         -- Laocoön