Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 11:16:28 -0700

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

Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen,

It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would unfair to characterize owen as the only holder of 
that preference.

but most ISPs seem to be
zeroing in on a /56 for production.  Though some ISPs are using /64 for
their trials.


-----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
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
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?

  By Date           By Thread  

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