[83313] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Wed Aug 10 13:52:52 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:51:41 -0400
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <E6A3DF28-7196-4A14-90F4-5EF99348BD3C@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>>>Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away
>>>with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global
>>>address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs.
>
>>and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the
>>link-locals?)
>
>You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do with
>pinging customers... But since IPv6 routing protocols work over
>link- locals you don't need global addresses.
>
>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.
>
>BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6.
>Thoughts?
Where is this being discussed? What sizing is being discussed? I'm
expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope
that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than
one device on a connection (of course that would be followed
immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened).
There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG
(draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that
everyone and his dog gets a /48 to justify the reasons IPv6 solves
the world's problems that were previously solved to varying extents
by NAT boxes. If the /48 thing is being discussed somewhere, that
would significantly alter the underpinnings of the draft's arguments.
Dan
