[183580] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Wed Sep 9 06:50:13 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Josh Moore <jmoore@atcnetworks.net>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:46:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <FA819A03-95B3-419E-BF17-283C25390E08@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 8/Sep/15 21:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> If the ISPs equipment supports IPv6 on shared VLANs with DHCP snooping and other security, you can implement it with a single /64 giving each router a unique address within that segment, but it’s not really ideal. This was mainly done in IPv4 to conserve addresses. Separate point to point VLANs are a cleaner solution and since there are enough addresses in IPv6 to do this, that is how most providers implement. I prefer using /64s (or at least assigning /64s) to these VLANs, but there are those who argue for /127, some equipment is broken and requires a /126, and yet others argue for other nonsensical prefixes.
With Private VLAN's, one could share a single /64 per VLAN without
providing Layer 2 reachability between customers on the broadcast domain.
However, agree that this is a non-issue for IPv6, so a cleaner method is
a lot better.
Mark.
