In message <b0147c3dd45e42478038fc347ccb65fe02a7643...@xch-mw-08v.mw.nos.boeing .com>, "Manfredi, Albert E" writes: > I guess I'm missing what the solution is. > > As 3177-bis says, the IETF has no control over how service providers hand out > IPv6 address space. From what I've been reading in the past few years, it lo > oks like at least some providers are planning to give /64s to customers.
Every ISP I've seen make that claim has also thought they need to fit into a /32. Once they were informed that that was not the case they changed their plans. Additionally the *nog lists see /56 as being standard these days (changed from about 6 months ago). There are still arguments about /48 but the /56 vs /64 has gone to /56. > The way I see it, unless we permit SLAAC to use more than 64-bit prefixes, ei > ther of two things will happen. > > 1. SLAAC will not work inside home networks, except for the simplest one-comp > uter case, or > > 2. Someone will have the brilliant idea to invent an IPv6 NAT. > > As Mark points out, this may encourage providers to hand out /127s. So, rock > and hard place. What's the answer, if no one can force providers to hand out > AT LEAST /56s? NAT? Competition will. CPE device manufactures will. Prefix delegation is being delivered today as part of the basic IPv6 functionality set in CPE devices. Remember HE hands out /48's for free to anyone in the world today. 6to4 delivers /48. Current 6rd (RFC 5969) supports just about an sized prefix. I don't think this is something that needs to be solved as it is a non problem. > Bert -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
