IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
gert at space.net
Wed Aug 21 22:58:34 CEST 2013
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:42:07PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> So how does http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10#section-3.4.1 fit? Would you say that text is acceptable Gert, given the documents' focus to more advanced routed IPv6 home networks?
I think it's perfectly fine - it describes what implementors will see
out there (prefix lengths of arbitrary length, and also *changing*
prefixes), and that things will just not work if ISPs are dumb enough
to assign just a /64.
The guidance by RFC6177 quoted is also not something I feel conflicts
with the delegation of management and responsibility to the RIR system -
it's good advice "look, we did this new protocol, it's addresses are *so*
large that you need to re-think some things, and please make good use
out of what we gave you" - things like "one /64 per LAN" are not really
"local address policy" either, but "technical decisions".
What I do object to is if people start discussions on IETF lists about
whether or not RIRs should give out IPv6 PI space, or how big an ISP's
allocation from it's RIR should be - this is really what the local
RIR constituencies must agree upon, not the IETF. Even if it's tricky,
as, of course, there is just one Internet, but 5 RIRs and 5 communities.
(Now we have strayed quite far from the original topic, which was about
what typical assignment sizes are used in practice by residential ISPs :) )
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
More information about the ipv6-ops