[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ahmed Abu-Abed
ahmed at tamkien.com
Tue Jul 19 13:44:06 CEST 2011
I am not proposing a change with respect to existing RFCs; we must to live with existing /64 subnets as a minimum allocation. My comments apply for future networks beyond the current 2000::/3 range used by all RIRs. Beyond this range all options are still open. -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:23 PM To: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) > On 7/19/11 1:10 PM, Ahmed Abu-Abed wrote: >> Currently the smallest network of physical devices (a home user's >> subnet) gets the largest block of addresses (/64 in size) from the LIR. >> There is a logic issue here. >> >> Thus we get the need for larger LIR IPv6 allocations. And dependencies >> on /64 subnets go beyond SLAAC and ND. >> >> If/when RIPE has a say on what happens beyond 2000::/3, where /64 >> subnets are required, then we can come up with ideas on smallest subnet >> size. Hardware should be sophisticated enough by then to handle such >> practical needs in case bit alignment is an issue. > > Please, stop here. Do not go any further. > > We are taking all possible measures to discourage development and > deployment of devices and mechanisms that would enable use of prefixes > shorter than /64 in one link-layer network. > > For example with initial /32 you could deploy 6RD in one 6RD domain, but > would give to user only one /64. In this case sooner or later the need > will emerge to develop something that magically enables you to split /64 > to more subnets and actually use that. This is all about adding another > layer of complexity and indirection to already messy world. That's one of > reasons we are discouraging assignments of /64 to a user. Use /56 or /48 > instead and avoid the pain later. > > Cheers, Jan >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]