[143290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Aug 5 12:39:17 2011
To: Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:17:48 EDT."
<CAAv0nWCfMtcGGyEfxP54J1SpydGj88A08iKGip8NfPjhm1az6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:38:16 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1312562296_2997P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:17:48 EDT, Brian Mengel said:
> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
> slightly preferred.
>
> I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying
> to address this problem. It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems
> like an adequate amount for an end user.
Basically, the thinking was a /56 is still "cheap" as far as allocating space,
so if you need more than a /64, might as well go to /56 and avoid the mess if a
user needs a 17th subnet. This isn't IPv4, where you have to actually worry
about burning through your IP allocation doling it out to customers. Even a
single /32 will service a *lot* of /56's, and I don't think *anybody* is big
enough to actually burn through a /24 allocation (feel free to prove me wrong..
;)
--==_Exmh_1312562296_2997P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOPBx4cC3lWbTT17ARApHCAJsH51UqhIQJLlEUdtTaJfTofHZlrwCgzFKZ
ICmKEvGgfNhO4zE2sfQarlk=
=PNbT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1312562296_2997P--
