RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
While the IETF's answer is, effectively, Yes - "/48 delegated to a
household" the world (or atleast ARIN :)) believes /56's are a more
reasonable size - and I tend to agree.
WRT "a reasonable sized ISP with a couple of million customers would require
a /28 or more just for their residential customer base" (nic'ed from another
mail in this thread) ... the IETF says thaFrom ipv6-bounces at ietf.org Wed Oct 1 06:55:14 2008
Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-web-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-web-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8083A6A61;
Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029AA3A6A61
for <ipv6 at core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id WaZGM0ATIidB for <ipv6 at core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com (mail-gx0-f16.google.com
[209.85.217.16])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42393A69EB
for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 06:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so131892gxk.13
for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:references
:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language;
bh=cSX0AovPqPy33m9jNr2ufPEm3TKOeBS1eqJdjz0T3kM=;
b=RyQIjUUf9HajlQkB2CkWC7W4twBCBj4LYJvnUZMG4WV9BMU8CXMKeb3QrABCknklJI
gn4CY5YzrHysEf+aTlffXF02hZEcSbDQx7JUQ9kPsMdh40joYMwkeQWp66c7NUedkg/I
tAraB7BYosvg5UkJKkBBezlWvuTF1gUa5KRcs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index
:content-language;
b=BMeq3CRWzTlhfg1Vnq5HJk/GJTKTHfMyafYFo0Cah0O2LknC8wP3saq1L8IIxp/6Ic
8KM4HrWAn4PZGCzbrp51DRYSNdkiFG7mhRvUrPxEDPPPZJUnBhnCNOJ+lyC/6mXDYrpX
BY0jevUX9HtF1HEaS5PRz779A/ztL4HHGbhhU=
Received: by 10.151.13.7 with SMTP id q7mr12098646ybi.123.1222869279032;
Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Lapci010 ([98.174.20.11])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z26sm4902928ele.7.2008.10.01.06.54.37
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "TJ" <trejrco at gmail.com>
To: <ipv6 at ietf.org>
References: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC085AB2AF at E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <48E37330.3060801 at gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0810011457120.20355 at mignon.ki.iif.hu>
<48E377FB.9080007 at gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <48E377FB.9080007 at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:54:36 -0400
Message-ID: <006b01c923cd$3e6787d0$bb369770$ at com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AckjyA+phM59O7eNQdKTjOuEDahangABA7jw
Content-Language: en-us
X-BeenThere: ipv6 at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
<mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6 at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
<mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
While the IETF's answer is, effectively, Yes - "/48 delegated to a
household" the world (or atleast ARIN :)) believes /56's are a more
reasonable size - and I tend to agree.
WRT "a reasonable sized ISP with a couple of million customers would require
a /28 or more just for their residential customer base" (nic'ed from another
mail in this thread) ... the IETF t is fine, they should simply
request the space. Some have already done so.
((This concern is exactly why ARIN recommends /56s. Problem solved?))
/TJ
PS - fairly late reminder, the v4v6Coexistence "interim" meeting is ongoing
now'ish --> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/int/trac/wiki/v4v6interim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Alexandru Petrescu
>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:16 AM
>To: Mohacsi Janos
>Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6 at ietf.org; Steve_Eiserman at ao.uscourts.gov;
>ralph.liguori at disa.mil; Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com; ksherman at mitre.org; draft-
>ietf-v6ops-addcon at tools.ietf.org; rbonica at juniper.net; night at nist.gov;
>dougm at nist.gov; v6ops-chairs at tools.ietf.org; cemartin at mitre.org
>Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
>
>Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>>>> In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
>>>>>
>>>>> An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
>>>>> With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless auto-configuration.
>>>>
>>>> In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape the ISP will assign you a
>>>> /48 with plenty of subnetting space.
>>>
>>> Not sure, FWIW, in the IPv6 ADSL household I live in gives me a /64
>>> and not /48 (see draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt).
>>>
>>> That's typical for me but I don't know about the other deployed IPv6
>>> ADSL, do they give /64 or shorter prefixes?
>>
>>
>> The draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt is largely
>> irrelevant in this discussion,
>
>Well thank you for the note :-) That's what I live with :-) I'll deviate
>the discussion in another thread.
>
>> In general - my recommendation when I giving tutorials about IPv6:
>>
>> - /48 to /128 is delegated to end users
>> - /48 general case, /47 if justified for bigger networks
>> - /64 if one and only one network is required
>> - /128 if it is sure that one and only one device is going to be
>> connected
>>
>> between /48 - /64 up to you if you are cautious about address
>conservation:
>> - but use nibble boundary for easier reverse DNS delegation.
>
>I think that sounds as good, careful recommendation, except that maybe a
>/48 delegated to a household (be that a castle) is too much.
>
>Alex
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Janos Mohacsi:
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>______________________________________________________________________
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6 at ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
says that is fine, they should simply
request the space. Some have already done so.
((This concern is exactly why ARIN recommends /56s. Problem solved?))
/TJ
PS - fairly late reminder, the v4v6Coexistence "interim" meeting is ongoing
now'ish --> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/int/trac/wiki/v4v6interim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>Alexandru Petrescu
>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:16 AM
>To: Mohacsi Janos
>Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; ipv6 at ietf.org; Steve_Eiserman at ao.uscourts.gov;
>ralph.liguori at disa.mil; Pasi.Eronen at nokia.com; ksherman at mitre.org; draft-
>ietf-v6ops-addcon at tools.ietf.org; rbonica at juniper.net; night at nist.gov;
>dougm at nist.gov; v6ops-chairs at tools.ietf.org; cemartin at mitre.org
>Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes?
>
>Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>>>> In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape...
>>>>>
>>>>> An ADSL IPv6 operational deployment offers a /64 prefix at home.
>>>>> With that, I can't subnet _and_ use IPv6 stateless auto-configuration.
>>>>
>>>> In a typical IPv6 ADSL household landscape the ISP will assign you a
>>>> /48 with plenty of subnetting space.
>>>
>>> Not sure, FWIW, in the IPv6 ADSL household I live in gives me a /64
>>> and not /48 (see draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt).
>>>
>>> That's typical for me but I don't know about the other deployed IPv6
>>> ADSL, do they give /64 or shorter prefixes?
>>
>>
>> The draft-despres-v6ops-6rd-ipv6-rapid-deployment-01.txt is largely
>> irrelevant in this discussion,
>
>Well thank you for the note :-) That's what I live with :-) I'll deviate
>the discussion in another thread.
>
>> In general - my recommendation when I giving tutorials about IPv6:
>>
>> - /48 to /128 is delegated to end users
>> - /48 general case, /47 if justified for bigger networks
>> - /64 if one and only one network is required
>> - /128 if it is sure that one and only one device is going to be
>> connected
>>
>> between /48 - /64 up to you if you are cautious about address
>conservation:
>> - but use nibble boundary for easier reverse DNS delegation.
>
>I think that sounds as good, careful recommendation, except that maybe a
>/48 delegated to a household (be that a castle) is too much.
>
>Alex
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Janos Mohacsi:
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>______________________________________________________________________
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6 at ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
