[182086] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Fri Jul 10 04:06:27 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Matthew Huff <mhuff@ox.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 10:04:58 +0200
In-Reply-To: <53343611e26f464f943e6886321f51fb@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 9/Jul/15 18:53, Matthew Huff wrote:
>
> If an ISP wants to give out a /48, great for them. If they want to give=
out only a /56, I say that's fine. What's more important to me is that t=
hey implement IPv6. Arguing about prefix size and SLAAC vs DHCP rather th=
an just go ahead and implement things, to me is just silly. When IP was f=
irst deployed, we didn't have DHCP (bootp was still in it's infancy), no =
mDNS, etc...Lots of things grew up after the fact. I agree that we can't =
foresee what will happen in the future, but that to me just proves my poi=
nt. Worrying about the ability to create complex topologies in home netwo=
rks that may or may not ever be needed or wanted just seems absurd to me.=
I tend to agree.
Let's just go out and do it and choose from what others are doing. Some
are doing /48, others are doing /56. Some are doing /64, even though we
all know that is not very good for obvious reasons, but...
=2E.. let's just get going.
Mark.
