Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:22:53 -0700

On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, 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.

Not slightly preferred, very much preferred. /56 is future proof and works for "everybody". /64 is short sighted and 
doesn't allow for multiple networks in the home.

I would say /56 is slightly preferred and that /48 is very much 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.

Why save on addresses, you can just get more IPv6 addresses if you need them. /56 is allowed per user from all the 
RIRs afaik.

All RIRs allow /48s actually. Some policies measure in increments of /56, BUT, even those policies
consider issuing a customer a /48 to be a valid use of 256 /56s for measurement purposes.

Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?

Yes, there are plenty of people with opinions.

This has been hashed over and over and over again, please check the archives for lots of discussions on pros an cons. 
If you want to do it right, go for /56, it works.

If you really want to do it right, go for /48… It works better.


Attachment: smime.p7s

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]