Hello all,
In a very recent RIPE meeting 1st May, Mirjam K�hne and Randy Bush presented
the following on on IPv6 Address allocation policies:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/
Among others, on slide 8, "ISP to Customer" there is:
---
* IAB/IESG recommended /48.
* Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is
required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!]
* Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given
802.11, bluetooth, etc.
---
I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed.
Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to
give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
This is very much related to the ISP discussion here a week or two ago; if
ISP is allowed to assign /128, they probably will.
Issues here:
1) End-users connecting with dial-up, ADSL, or whatever
* Should get _at least_ /64 (so no _serius_ need for NAT)
* Should subnetworking be possible (perhaps yes)?
==> /48 would be optimal.
2) Apparently IAB/IESG proposal was not taken too seriously
* With /48 to end-users, the address space would be exhausted;
this would be only 16 (not really used in assignments) + IPv4 space.
==> _Did IAB/IESG propose how this should be solved?_
If this is a wrong list, please advise which would be better one.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
