A university has a global /32 from its RIR, four large campuses, and hundreds of VLANs for classrooms, labs, and housing needing stable addresses plus room for research growth. The design must keep routing summaries clean and preserve standard subnet sizing. Which IPv6 address allocation with prefix hierarchy best meets the structured addressing requirement?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You are building neat neighborhoods that roll up cleanly here. A per-site /48 with /64 subnets keeps hierarchy tidy, like zip codes containing street addresses for easy summarization.
Full Explanation
A /48 per site taken from the /32 creates a stable two-level hierarchy that allows each campus to summarize one prefix upward while leaving 16 bits for subnetting, and a /64 per VLAN preserves the standard subnet size required for SLAAC and EUI-64 operation, which satisfies clean aggregation and growth. Assigning a /64 per site with /127 per VLAN fails by concept because it breaks hierarchy and SLAAC expectations, since /127 is for point-to-point links and a site /64 leaves no subnet bits. Assigning a /48 per VLAN fails by concept because it wastes site-level aggregation and explodes the routing table without summarization benefit, even though longer prefixes feel abundant. Random /64 assignment with NAT66 fails by concept because it destroys hierarchical summarization and adds unnecessary translation, since IPv6 design avoids NAT through abundant address space. For the exam remember /48 site and /64 subnet is the conventional enterprise baseline with nibble-aligned planning; in practice document prefix assignments in IPAM and reserve space for future campuses and labs.