mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 07:19:10 -0700
On Aug 6, 2011 2:11 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com> wrote:
I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will
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
users of our IPv6 tunnel services. We do not anticipate changing that
A lot of good that /48 will do while HE rides out their on going peering war
and customers are missing a wide swath of the ipv6 routing table.
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
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
in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical
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
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?
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Doug Barton (Aug 05)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing William Herrin (Aug 06)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Matthew Moyle-Croft (Aug 09)
Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mohacsi Janos (Aug 09)