Hi, > On 13 Jun 2016, at 11:26, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nathalie, > >> As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that >> assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64. >> >> 5.4.1. Assignment address space size >> >> End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The >> size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using >> a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). >> >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 >> >> On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating: >> >> 2. Recommendation >> IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in >> Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. >> >> Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length >> of IPv6 prefixes by design. In particular, forwarding processes MUST >> be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by >> increments of 1. >> >> In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an >> IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should >> be a /64. >> I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if alignment >> between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed. > > That is an interpretation of RFC7608 that I hope is not common. > RFC7608 is written for the purpose of ensuring that forwarding engines (and > routing protocols) are built so that they can handle any prefix length. > Apparently some implementations treated IPv6 as classful, and only supported > forwarding of prefix lengths from 0-64 and 128. RFC7608 has absolutely > nothing to do with end-site address assignment. The IETF consensus on that is > in RFC6177.
RFC 7421 (“Why /64?”) is also relevant here, I think. Tim
