[158779] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 10 18:16:51 2012
In-Reply-To: <50C65C84.6080203@dougbarton.us>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:14:09 -0800
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 ::=
IPv6 /64
>=20
> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
> in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
> end-user host to function under normal circumstances.
No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single host. How=
ever, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead and the reality i=
s that hardly anyone has a single host any more.
Heather has the corollaries correct.
> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough about i=
t to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far more likely to ge=
t this changed by submitting a policy proposal than you are by complaining t=
o NANOG about it.
Owen
