[143353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sun Aug 7 11:27:05 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAv0nWCfMtcGGyEfxP54J1SpydGj88A08iKGip8NfPjhm1az6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 08:26:09 -0700
To: Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:
> 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?
When you have a device that delegates, e.g. a cpe taking it's assigned =
prefix, and delegating a fraction of it to a downstream device, you need =
enough bits that you can make them out, possibly more than once. if you =
want that to happen automatically you want enough bits that =
user-intervention is never (for small values of never) required in to =
subnet when connecting devices together...
the homenet wg is exploring how devices in the home might address the =
issue of topology discovery in conjunction with delegation, which =
realistically home networks are going to have to do...
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
