IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

Arturo Servin aservin at lacnic.net
Tue Aug 20 17:02:12 CEST 2013

	Wrong link (I would ask to add a note to that old link)

	This is the correct one:


	Allocations criteria to end users refers to RFC6177.

	So, I do not know in which part we disagree. But it does matter, the
important fact is that ISP can chose what allocation to provide to
en-users (as long it based in need and under certain technical criteria
-RFC6177-) and it is not dictated by the RIR.


On 8/20/13 11:46 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote:
>> 	So it seems that we agree.
> No, we do not agree as your statement is wrong.
> I suggest you read up on:
>  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589
> and as you claim to work for LACNIC:
>  http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>> On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>>>> 	It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those
>>>>> regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48
>>>>> depends on the ISP alone.
>>> As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one
>>> needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended
>>> usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for
>>> those purposes.
>>> Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too...
>>> If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they
>>> could just as well just stick with IPv4.

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list