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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Dec 11 08:43:14 UTC 2012

On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:

> 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.

Regardless of how you phrase it, the functional IPv6 equivalent of an IPv4 /32 is an IPv6 /128.

You don't configure a /64 on a loopback interface in a router, for example, you configure a /128.

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

I'm loving mine.


More information about the NANOG mailing list