IPv6 Address Planning

Wed Aug 10 17:51:41 UTC 2005

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