nanog mailing list archives
Re: V6 still not supported
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2022 00:17:10 -0400
Owen DeLong wrote:
/48 as universal site assignments is a ridiculousness that should never be a norm, and unsurprisingly in the real world it isnt.On Mar 24, 2022, at 21:18 , James R Cutler <james.cutler () consultant com <mailto:james.cutler () consultant com>> wrote:On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:I think that we’re still OK on allocation policies. What I’d like to see is an end to the IPv4-think in large ISPs, such as Comcast’s continued micro allocations to their customers.What exactly is your definition of “micro allocations”? Is a prefix/56 a “micro allocation”? In over nine years of being an active forum participant and customer of Comcast, I can not recall the usage of the term.They’re issuing /60s (maximum) to residential customers.And yes, a /56 is a micro allocation. /48 is the intended norm for IPv6 site assignments and is a perfectly reasonable prefix size for v6 delegation to a site.Owen
Now if your goal is to pick a number which will never change and is large enough to work for any assignment anywhere for any network topology ever, well you found it.
However, thats a solution in search of a problem. Which causes its own problems.
A /48 gives 16 bits of /64 subnetting for the site.Which is the same number of bits initial default ISP /32 has. Ridiculous in either direction.
If you apply the same logic to ISP's that you have to end user site assignments (which is descended from the same logic as /64 subnets), you need to move left. Again. Goodbye limitless ipv6.
Or you can move right on the /64 nonsense. SLAAC does not|should not need /64. Or, SLAAC isnt needed at all. Chaining DHCP to SLAAC is more nonsense.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: V6 still not supported, (continued)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Michael Thomas (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported James R Cutler (Mar 24)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 25)
- Re: V6 still not supported Joe Maimon (Mar 26)
- Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Christopher Morrow (Mar 25)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 25)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 25)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Paul Rolland (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Tom Beecher (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC Randy Carpenter (Mar 26)
- Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203261748.AYC Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 27)