Re: IPv6 end user addressing

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will eventually
come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s.

Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers and
users of our IPv6 tunnel services. We do not anticipate changing that policy.

Owen

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:

> Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be
> zeroing in on a /56 for production.  Though some ISPs are using /64 for
> their trials.
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: Brian Mengel
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing
>
> /56 is definitely preferable to /64, but, /48 really is a better choice.
>
> /56 is very limiting for autonomous hierarchical deployments.
>
> It's not about number of subnets. It's about the ability to provide some
> flexibility
> in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical
> topologies
> automatically.
>
> Owen
>
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote:
>
> > In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
> > agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
> > users.  /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
> > slightly preferred.
> >
> > I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying
> > to address this problem.  It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems
> > like an adequate amount for an end user.
> >
> > Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: