[158781] 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 18:22:29 2012
In-Reply-To: <20121210230253.8BEE82CE0B5D@drugs.dv.isc.org>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:17:41 -0800
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
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 3:02 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
>=20
> In message <50C65C84.6080203@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>> 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 :=
: I
>> Pv6 /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.
>>=20
>> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
>>=20
>> Doug
>=20
> Even SWIP for a /48 for a residential assignment is excessive.
> SWIP for a /48 for a commercial assignment is reasonable
>=20
I disagree. SWIP for a /48 with the appropriate notations under residential c=
ustomer privacy policy provides a good balance between the need for public a=
ccountability of resource utilization and privacy concerns for residential c=
ustomer assignments.
Owen
