/52 Never Mentioned?

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Oct 19 22:40:42 CEST 2010

People might like to check whether the considerations listed
in draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites are OK on this
point. /52 isn't explicitly mentioned (and doesn't need to
be, IMHO) but there is a very good reason for nibble boundaries:

>       - the operational considerations of managing and delegating the
>         reverse DNS tree under ip6.arpa on nibble vs. non-nibble
>         boundaries should be given adequate consideration

   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-10-20 08:32, Erik Kline wrote:
> On 19 October 2010 09:05, Elmar K. Bins <elmi at 4ever.de> wrote:
>> devon at noved.org (Devon True) wrote:
>>> I have been reading the numerous v6 assignment debates (/48 vs /56) and
>>> I never see a /52 mentioned. Is there an operational reason? It would
>>> seem like a nice middle ground were a /56 could be too small but a /48
>>> could be seen as "wasteful".
>> ... just as a /56 is seen as the middle ground where a /64 could be too
>> small but a /48 could be seen as wasteful ...
>> How small would you want to splice the address space?
> Nibble boundaries make it fairly convenient to slice and dice as you wish.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list