[190712] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for Mobile Subscribers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Fri Jul 22 14:24:54 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAE0OVL9f9JEMDWx3-DzH7-nQUbWJFGAE5oWfWN-sX6MXhMtq_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:24:50 -0700
To: Ricardo Ferreira <ricardofbferreira@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Friday, July 22, 2016, Ricardo Ferreira <ricardofbferreira@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed?
> We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I
> am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it
> is /64 or /128.
>
> In RFC 3177, it says:
> 3. Address Delegation Recommendations
>
> The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary
> between the public and the private topology to follow those general
> rules:
>
> - /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers.
> - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by
> design.
> - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device
> is connecting.
>
> Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am
> wondering if this rule is follwed.
>
> Cheers
>
>
Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no choice.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6459
> --
> Ricardo Ferreira
>
