[83297] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sdb@stewartb.com)
Wed Aug 10 11:53:32 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:55:32 +0100 (BST)
From: sdb@stewartb.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "Christopher L.Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E6A3DF28-7196-4A14-90F4-5EF99348BD3C@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so
> they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that
> anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them.
Having just done an IPv6 rollout, I went for a block of addresses which I
would use just for p2p links, split it into chunks for peers, customers
etc, then used a /126 for each link. Seems to work fine and (I think)
seems to be what most people are doing.
> BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6.
> Thoughts?
The current recommendation for a /48 for any customer (pretty much) does
initially seem to me to be a bit wasteful, though that's perhaps because I
keep thinking in IPv4 terms. Having said that, I think that perhaps a /48
for home users isn't _really_ necessary. How many domestic appliances can
you connect to the net :)
StewartB
--
Stewart Bamford (Posting as an individual)
Level3 Snr IP Engineer
*** Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Level3 ***
Personal website http://www.stewartb.com/
