On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
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.
No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single
host.
You saw how I very carefully phrased my statement to try to avoid this
kind of ratholing, right? :)
However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead
and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more.
Heather has the corollaries correct.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, just don't be surprised when
people disagree with you.
SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.
I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough
about it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far
more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than
you are by complaining to NANOG about it.
I certainly don't care enough about it to do that, I was just voicing an
opinion.
Doug (personally I'd be happy just to have native IPv6 available)
