[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Jan 16 09:15:59 CET 2008
On 15 Jan 2008, at 22:18, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > timothy.clarke at thecloud.net (Timothy Clarke) wrote: >> From the little I've seen / read regarding IPv6 I get the impression >> that people are starting to think of a IPv6 /48 in the same light >> as a >> IPv4 /24. >> As such a /56 will fall into the same hole as longer IPv4 prefix's in >> that no one wants to carry them. > Same here. I'd not bother with a /56. I recommend using a /48 and > nothing > else. Same as for "special use v6 PI" - and the size has been > chosen for > a reason there. There would need to be no mnt-lower or similar, to prevent people using /48 PI when they should really be becoming members of RIPE and getting a /48 PA. I'm still thinking about whether I feel this is a good idea. If v4- >v6 migration is going to work, then everyone who has some v4 PI is *probably* going to need some v6 PI. Perhaps sorting out the "does need" from the "should just get a slice of an upstream's PA" is going to be arduous, time-consuming, and possibly soul crushing, so I'm erring towards thinking that perhaps this is a good idea, it just needs some community refinement. Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]