IPv6 End User Assignments

[Steve Bertrand]

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 09/05/2009 9:17, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> But a /47 sub-allocation does not need RIR approval. So the ISP can provide
>>> a /47 prefix which the customer can assign as two separate /48, one to each
>>> half of its 'site'.
>> I would call this "bending the policy".
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
>> Even if you do sub-allocations,
>> the assignment rule of "maximum of a /48 per site" still holds (and the
>> NCC is going to ask the LIR questions about this).
>>
>> Of course, if the customer actually *has* two sites, two /48s would
>> obviously be fine.
> 
> In practical terms, I think that any site large enough to have even a vague
> need for two /48s could legitimately claim to be two sites and so not worry.
> I think the only potential reason to worry is that the /48 might become the
> new "Class C" and network consultants will want to use one per floor, room,
> department or whatever.
> 
> I suspect we can worry about this trend if and when we see it.

I've heard it said that once 2000::/3 nears an end, we will have had
enough operational experience to really decide on a decent policy
regarding assignments.

Unfortunately, it seems as there are more people fighting each other as
to what *should* be done, and not enough of the larger (or even small
for that matter) *SPs sharing information as to what is currently
working for them, and what is not working for them.

_Personally_, I don't see /48s by default as a good thing, but I know
for a fact that I'm still (unfortunately) having difficulty moving away
from the v4 mindset in regard to ``you have this type of link, you get
this much space''. This incorrect mindset is still prevalent due to not
enough operational experience, and having no context to have learnt from
mistakes.

At this point, personally, I'm rolling with a /64 PtP, and a /56 to ALL
clients (some may never use the routed /56, just the /64), but I'm also
reserving the encompassing /48 for those /56s, just in case ARIN policy
changes to reflect 48 for everyone. If it doesn't, and operational BCP
states that anything less than /48 is what we do, then I can begin using
those reserved encompassing /48s to other clients attached to the same PE.

I don't like /64 where only one subnet is needed, because I've made that
mistake before. Inevitably, the site will need more space (says Murphy).
I do like /56 for all, unless a /48 can be forseen by yourself as the
network op, or warranted immediately by the client.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3233 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20090509/f0986b97/attachment.bin>