On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having > to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the "will > I ever need a second subnet" consideration, the average allocation > size goes down and moving to a /48 after having grown out of a /60 > isn't too painful. There's a certain appeal to this, to have to renumber before your network grows too big. Interesting suggestion. > It's also really helpful if all ISPs use the same subnet sizes. For > instance, I can set up my routes as DHCPv6 prefix delegation clients, > so they can be reconfigured with new address prefixes automatically > when changing ISPs, but I still need to put the subnet bits (and > therefore the subnet size) in the configuration by hand, so having to > change that defeats the purpose of the exercise. Which was the point of /48 pervasively? -- Tim/::1 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf