Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 10 23:14:09 UTC 2012
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64
> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32
> in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an
> end-user host to function under normal circumstances.
No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single host. However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more.
Heather has the corollaries correct.
> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than you are by complaining to NANOG about it.
More information about the NANOG