[190728] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Deployment for Mobile Subscribers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carsten Bormann)
Sat Jul 23 05:55:08 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:55:01 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
To: Ricardo Ferreira <ricardofbferreira@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE0OVL9f9JEMDWx3-DzH7-nQUbWJFGAE5oWfWN-sX6MXhMtq_A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
RFC 6177:
This document obsoletes RFC 3177, updating its recommendations in the
following ways:
1) It is no longer recommended that /128s be given out. While
there may be some cases where assigning only a single address
may be justified, a site, by definition, implies multiple
subnets and multiple devices.
Generally, when you look at an obsolete document such as
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177
there is a link to the current version ("Obsoleted by: 6177"):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177
Do not use websites showing RFCs that do not show this information;
you'll be stuck with outdated specifications.
Grüße, Carsten
Ricardo Ferreira 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
>
