IPv6 end user addressing

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sat Aug 6 13:16:28 CDT 2011


On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen,

It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would unfair to characterize owen as the only holder of that preference.

> 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?
> 
> 
> 





More information about the NANOG mailing list