[158789] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Mon Dec 10 23:35:56 2012
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:35:35 -0800
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <010828F3-8EFE-466F-8787-4DF1C61C8D5B@delong.com>
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
On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>> 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.
You saw how I very carefully phrased my statement to try to avoid this
kind of ratholing, right? :)
> However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead
> and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more.
>
> Heather has the corollaries correct.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, just don't be surprised when
people disagree with you.
>> 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 it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far
> more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than
> you are by complaining to NANOG about it.
I certainly don't care enough about it to do that, I was just voicing an
opinion.
Doug (personally I'd be happy just to have native IPv6 available)
