[143334] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sat Aug 6 14:18:00 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <005f01cc53c2$e52b4200$af81c600$@iname.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 11:16:28 -0700
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen,
It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would =
unfair to characterize owen as the only holder of that preference.
> but most ISPs seem to be
> zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 =
for
> their trials.
>=20
> Frank
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: Brian Mengel
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>=20
> /56 is definitely preferable to /64, but, /48 really is a better =
choice.
>=20
> /56 is very limiting for autonomous hierarchical deployments.
>=20
> It's not about number of subnets. It's about the ability to provide =
some
> flexibility
> in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical
> topologies
> automatically.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:
>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?
>=20
>=20
>=20
