Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
Hi, On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion: The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they delegated responsibility to IANA Wait. What? IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA. It's called delegation, which goes along with not meddling with it anymore. IANA, in turn, gave it to the RIRs, and policy is now made by the RIR constituencies, not by IETF or IANA. But you know all that already, so what about the sentence above (except my blunder) is upsetting you? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 pgpfmDAjer0IX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. Regards, as On 8/20/13 10:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2013-08-20 15:37 , Tayeb Meftah wrote: Hi guys, i am planing a lab to build a Recidential ISP Platform i have a tunneled /48 and i cut of 4 of /64 for routing use (OSPFV3) what's the current recomandation for recidential IPV6 assignement? The recommendation depends on the RIR region, but typically a /48 should be routed to the customer. In the ARIN region it seems acceptable to use /56's too though. Greets, Jeroen
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). Working for a RIR just means that you are implementing the rules that are set by that RIRs membership. Thus working for one says little... Every RIR has different rules and regulations, and on top of that they keep on changing all the time too. It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for those purposes. Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they could just as well just stick with IPv4. Greets, Jeroen
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
It was a disclaimer only. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2013-08-20 16:33 , Arturo Servin wrote: I wouldn't say that it is dependent in the RIR, it is about an ISP decision, not about a regional organization. (note, I work for one). Working for a RIR just means that you are implementing the rules that are set by that RIRs membership. Thus working for one says little...
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
So it seems that we agree. .as On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for those purposes. Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they could just as well just stick with IPv4.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On 2013-08-20 16:40 , Arturo Servin wrote: So it seems that we agree. No, we do not agree as your statement is wrong. I suggest you read up on: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 and as you claim to work for LACNIC: http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual5.html Greets, Jeroen On 8/20/13 11:36 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: It may be some bias from some organizations or individuals in those regions, but at the end the decision of using /64, /60, /56 or /48 depends on the ISP alone. As prefixes are allocated based on the amount of address space one needs, the ISP receives that allocation from RIR based on the intended usage. As such, it is also expected that the space is actually used for those purposes. Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... If ISPs are just going to give a single /64 to end-sites, then they could just as well just stick with IPv4.
Re: IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Next to that there is a very nice IETF recommendation too... The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they delegated responsibility to ARIN. IANA. Fat fingers. Wait. What? Regards, -drc signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
