[175093] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Default Allocation - What size allocation are you giving out
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 9 03:41:50 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141009050623.GB15355@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 00:34:08 -0700
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 8, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
> Mark,
>=20
>>> >Only short sighted ISP's hand out /56's to residential customers.
>=20
>>>=20
>>> I am curious as to why you say it is short sighted? what is the =
technical or
>>> otherwise any other reasoning for such statement ?
>>=20
>> 256 is *not* a big number of subnets. By restricting the number
>> of subnets residences get you restrict what developers will design
>> for. Subnets don't need to be scares resource. ISP's that default =
to
>> /56 are making them a scares resource.
>=20
> The excerpt Royce quoted from RFC6177 (requoted below) seems to back =
away from /48s by default to all resi users and land in a somewhat vague =
"more than a /64 please, but we're not specifically recommending /48s =
across the board for residential" before specifically mentioning /56 =
assignments.
Yes, but if you review the record as 6177 was rammed through against =
somewhat vociferous objection to this part, you should realize that that =
part really didn=92t achieve near the level of consensus that should =
have been required for it to be accepted.
> The general push in the community is towards /48 across the board. =
Any comments on why the RFC backs away from that? Is this just throwing =
a bone to the masses complaining about "waste=94?
It was a political maneuver to appease the IPv4 thinkers that were =
prevalent in that part of the IETF at the time. (Just my opinion).
Owen
