Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:43:14 -0800

On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote:

On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>

On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote:
I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as
IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64

Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to
a /32 in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that
will allow an end-user host to function under normal

No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single

You saw how I very carefully phrased my statement to try to avoid this kind of ratholing, right? :)

However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead
and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more.

Heather has the corollaries correct.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, just don't be surprised when people disagree with you.

Regardless of how you phrase it, the functional IPv6 equivalent of an IPv4 /32 is an IPv6 /128.

You don't configure a /64 on a loopback interface in a router, for example, you configure a /128.

SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW.

I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough
about it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far
more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than
you are by complaining to NANOG about it.

I certainly don't care enough about it to do that, I was just voicing an opinion.

Doug (personally I'd be happy just to have native IPv6 available)

I'm loving mine.


  By Date           By Thread  

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