Re: [pekkas@localhost: RIR ISP to end-user address allocation policy?]
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:54:30 +0200
Hi,
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:52:07PM +0200, John Wells wrote:
> Here's a message from the IPv6 WG listserv. This should start some
> discussion..
Why?
[..]
> Hello all,
>
> In a very recent RIPE meeting 1st May, Mirjam K|hne and Randy Bush presented
> the following on on IPv6 Address allocation policies:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/
>
> Among others, on slide 8, "ISP to Customer" there is:
>
> ---
> * IAB/IESG recommended /48.
> * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is
> required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!]
> * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given
> 802.11, bluetooth, etc.
> ---
>
> I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed.
>
> Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to
> give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the
ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one
subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48.
[..]
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
