[ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 11:58:04 CEST 2016
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie at ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64. > > 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). > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655 > > On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating: > > 2. Recommendation > IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in > Section 5.1 of [RFC4632]. > > Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length > of IPv6 prefixes by design. In particular, forwarding processes MUST > be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by > increments of 1. > > In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should be a /64. > I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if alignment between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed. I would say, please don't mix implementation with actual usage. I can run 100 000 x /128 internal while only have 2 x /48 external. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]