[ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed Apr 30 16:44:24 CEST 2008
Michael, You wrote: > > If you have 30 millions "dummy" DSL (or cable modem, or mobile-phone) users > > how would you provide IP addresses for them > > According to current RIPE policy, you assign each one of these DSL or cable modem > customers with a /48. Mobile phones are different and should probably get a /64 > since their internal networks will not have additional interfaces added. Of course, > in the future we will have mobile phones which can act as Internet gateways for > our car LAN and then they will get a /48. That's not actually what the current policy document says. It's actual wording is: 5.4.1. Assignment address space size End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site). The old policy (ripe-412) had the reference to RFC 3177 that you have paraphrased. But that recommendation has been removed and the only suggested limit is a minimum value of /64. Apart from that minimum, the network operator can do whatever makes most sense to their network and customer base. So, in answer to the original question, 30m /64s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /56s is fine if that's what is needed and 30m /48s is fine if that's what is needed. There is a presumption of subsidiarity in the policy text, putting the choice into local hands. Regards, Leo Vegoda
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Joking follow-up
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]