| > In the end, I think the idea of making all subnets /64's may have been a mistake. True, but just imagine the subnets are only 64k hosts, with ipv6's address space as a /80. My own ipv4 routed network (which is currently routed across 5 continents) is based on a space in the 172.16/12 range comprising 5 /16s. A lot of the subnets I use are chopped down to /27, /28 and /29 (and of course /30 and /31s for links and /32s for loopbacks). That said it's a bit of a squeeze at the moment. To implement that in an ipv6 world, I'd make every subnet currently sizing between /29 and /25 into a /64. At most it's 8 subnets per /24 at the moment, so call it 16. As such every /24 I currently allocate would be a /60. and I have 1280 of those /24s, so 11 bits, which means I need a /49. Add some expansion space (which I'm currently looking at) and that seems quite neat as a /48. That's a fairly big network. At some point in the future I could see justifying a second /48. My company as a whole certainly has more requirement than that, but we have a /32 allocated (we also have a /16 and /19 in ipv4 land and 2 ASes). That /32 could allocate 65,000 of my continent spanning networks. I think we have about 8, and only a couple are really large. The main one is based on the 10/8 network range, which would probably fit into a single /48, but certainly in a handful of them. > where anyone can grab a /32. If the requirement to grab a single /32 is an ability to fill in a form asking for it, we aren't going to be running into any issues any time in the next 100 years. |