[135726] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another v6 question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Carlson)
Fri Jan 28 04:11:58 2011
In-Reply-To: <A942C766-5018-451E-B136-6CBA67EEC03F@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:10:00 +0100
From: Per Carlson <pelle@hemmop.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Owen.
> The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of =
auto-topology
> management that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend /4=
8 instead.
I've seen this claim (you need a /48) from your side several times,
but never seen any explanation why a /56 won't work.
Is there any requirement that sub-delegations must happen on 8-bit
boundaries? AFAICS there is at least nothing in the RFC. Wouldn't for
example a nibble boundary work equally well (splitting a /56 into 16
/60s, each containing 16 /64s)?
I don't challenge the claim, I'm just trying to understand the
rationale behind it.
--=20
Pelle
RFC1925, truth 11:
=A0Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
=A0a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.
