IPv6 end user addressing
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Sat Aug 6 09:06:46 UTC 2011
I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will eventually
come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s.
Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers and
users of our IPv6 tunnel services. We do not anticipate changing that policy.
Owen
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be
> zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 for
> their trials.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: Brian Mengel
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>
> /56 is definitely preferable to /64, but, /48 really is a better choice.
>
> /56 is very limiting for autonomous hierarchical deployments.
>
> It's not about number of subnets. It's about the ability to provide some
> flexibility
> in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical
> topologies
> automatically.
>
> Owen
>
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:
>
>> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
>> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
>> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
>> slightly preferred.
>>
>> I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying
>> to address this problem. It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems
>> like an adequate amount for an end user.
>>
>> Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110806/44b97393/attachment.bin>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list