On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:53 PM, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to a /32 in >> IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that will allow an >> end-user host to >function under normal circumstances. > >> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW. > > IPv4/32 is both a routing endpoint and a host. IPv4 is a 32 bit combined > routing and host space. > > IPv6/64 is a routing endpoint and v6/128 is a host. IPv6 is a 64 bit > routing space and also a 64 bit host space for each routing space, not a 128 > bit combined routing and host space. >
You can make a /128 a routing endpoint in IPv6 just like a /32 in IPv4 with all the same rules, restrictions, and limitations. > Evidently, the whois requirement is for networks, not nodes, which makes > sense when you think about how the entity that controls a /64 is assuming > responsibility for 2^64 network nodes. Correct (in the first part). In reality, nobody has 2^64 nodes, that's more than the square of the current host addressing available in all of IPv4. You'll never see a /64 full of hosts. For one thing, there's no concept for switching hardware that could handle that large of a MAC adjacency table, nor is there ever likely to be such. Owen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Barton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 5:05 PM > To: Schiller, Heather A > Cc: Constantine A. Murenin; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public > whois? > > On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote: >> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as IPv4 /29 >> :: IPv6 /64 > > > Doug > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5946 - Release Date: 12/08/12
