<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
We are looking at our model for deploying IPv6 /48 prefixes to end sites. Currently, we are suppying a /29 or /30 IPv4 subnet, and the end customer provides a router/firewall that typically will be doing NAT. We supply a customer edge device that utilizes the first IP of the v4 subnet assigned to the customer on the "LAN" interface, and the "WAN" interface is numbered with RFC 1918 space. This allows us to have one numbered interface and one static route per customer.<br><br>In the case of an IPv6 prefix, the "WAN" interface of the device we provide will be using a /64 prefix taken from a pool set aside for loopbacks. Is it acceptable practice to number the "LAN" interface using a /64 taken from the /48 assigned for the customer, or is it current practice to use a second /64 outside of the /48 to route the /48 to customer equipment? In other words, in a scenario such as this, are we to provide [/64 + /64 + /48] or [/64 + (/48 - /64)] to the end site?<br><br>Thanks for any input or RTFM material on the subject,<br><br>Ron<br><br> </div></body>
</html>