v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

Anthony Roberts nanog at arbitraryconstant.com
Thu Feb 5 01:05:18 UTC 2009

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
<mmc at internode.com.au> wrote:
> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set 
> of problems.  A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).

It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.

> Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own 
> statically is insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables 
> more than is rational.

No larger than their ARP tables are now.

More information about the NANOG mailing list