Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Tue Dec 11 04:35:35 UTC 2012

On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.

You saw how I very carefully phrased my statement to try to avoid this 
kind of ratholing, right? :)

> 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.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, just don't be surprised when 
people disagree with you.

>> 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.

I certainly don't care enough about it to do that, I was just voicing an 

Doug (personally I'd be happy just to have native IPv6 available)

More information about the NANOG mailing list