[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Dan Reeder]

I think you've misinterpreted his comments Jeroen
To me it merely meant a /126 ("single user endpoint") as a means to reach a
customer's /48 or /64 prefix. That seems perfectly acceptable for standard
single-homed subnets. There's no intention of things becomming like NAT...
its just intended to be the equivilant of ipv4 /30s
Of course you'd increase it to perhaps /112 if the customer wanted their
subnet to be multihomed, or perhaps use  the existing /126 with a new /126.

It's not that we dont get the subject, indeed I think we do - its just that
goign to extremes such as saying /64s MUST be used for ptp links because an
RFC says so seems a little excessive. Certianly from a tunnel broker's
perspective we'd prefer to assign something quite small (/127s as we've been
doing - that may change to /126s or /112s after this thread) for the ptp
tunnelling, and then a larger block eg /64 or /48 for their own LAN routing.

But what happens when you do have a single user without a LAN of their own
wanting ipv6 access? Assigning a /64 would not be of any more benefit to
them over assigning a /128. Or do you reckon every user in the world (eg
dialup, home dsl) should be assigned a /64 via something like PPP in the off
chance they do want to some subnetting?

Dan Reeder
tb.ipv6.net.au

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: "'Jørgen Hovland'" <jorgen@hovland.cx>; "'Pekka Savola'"
<pekkas@netcore.fi>; "'Gert Doering'" <gert@space.net>
Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: RE: [6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>
> > I'll give it a try.
> > "Anonymous P2P-connections"
> > If you use a /64 and give the peer an ip address, you have no
> > guarantee it will be using that address, or only that address, because
you
> > allocated the whole /64.
>
> I suggest you stick to IPv4 and NAT. And no I don't mean that sarcastic.
>
> If you want to sell 'single-user' products then count their
> bandwidth usage. Or are you getting your IP's from your transit provider?
> Transit providers charge you for bandwidth consumption.
> So should you. If you have no intention of selling them internet access
> then why call yourself an ISP at all ?
>
> "single-user products" as you call it are the biggest reasons why
> we have those awfull NAT's today. And how many users are behind
> that NAT even though you just gave them 1 IPv4 address? LOTS.
>
> > >The standard *is* /64 (the RFC says so).  Just to clarify.
> >
> > RFC's are voidable when the majority says so.
>
> I suggest you stay away from IPv6 as you don't have any intention
> of using it for the biggest reason: End to End connectivity.
>
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
> Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
>
> iQA/AwUBP5mjyimqKFIzPnwjEQJh0ACgqwnnDvq7+GNXUJrD+YF09+hRZ3MAn3J3
> SradMGIvvzzigNYLni4vF04n
> =2WmW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone