On Jun 18, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Daniel Ankers <md1...@md1clv.com> wrote:
> On 18 June 2014 19:05, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> OTOH, it's far better than those ridiculous providers that are screwing >> over their customers with /56s or even worse, /60s. >> >> Sad, really. >> >> Owen >> >> > Is giving a /56 to residential customers REALLY "screwing them over"? > > It may be a failure of imagination on my part, but I'm struggling to come > up with use cases for the home which would take up even 10% of the networks > available in a /56. And if the vast, vast majority of home users will > never come close to needing the whole of a /56 then I don't see why every > home should be given a /48. > > Dan Responding to Dan, The costs incurred in managing variable subnetting based on user type have been clearly demonstrated in almost two decades of IPv4 networking. If I can assign a /48 to each and every customer (not considered a large enterprise) then my deployment costs plummet because I do NOT need to spend engineering time on address assignment. I only need to get out my Network Engineer’s binary knife to slice the address pie once. The same front office that takes the order can at the same time assign the IPv6 Prefix - sort of like Ma Bell does with phone numbers. Since one of my goals as a network provider is to be competitive in price, minimizing extraneous labor costs helps me to still make a modest profit. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
