On 07/09/2015 02:38 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
A single /48 has enough space/subnets cover the entire infrastructure of 99.9999% of ISPs even using /64's for p2p links rather than taking one /64 and subdividing that for all of the p2p links. Treat the ISP as a business customer of itself when allocating address space for itself. A single /48 or one /48 per site.
A single /48 is more than enough for infrastructure, yes. It was a 5-minute example. Bitmapping the allocations can't be done right now in IPv4 (technically it can, but there's not enough to go around). One of the good things about IPv6 is supposed to be not having to worry about address waste. You're never going to fill up even a single /64 with current technology (you'll run out of MAC addresses first). Taking the infrastructure example above: sure, a /48 is a waste. Who cares? So is a /64 for my home network. Again, who cares? There are enough addresses. As someone said here, they're just integers. My whole point is: why not allow some room for more flexible allocations? Compatibility was already broken by changing address length.
The thinking is that ISP's are experts and can deal with managing complex allocation policy. They can also deal with multiple more specific routes etc. They already cope with this in IPv4.
Uh... okay?