[6bone] Is minimum allocation /64 now?

[Tim Chown]

As an ISP you can allocate whatever you like.

There will be enough ISPs offering homes /48's and certainly /64's that
those that offer a /126 will simply lose business to the more forward
looking suppliers.

Customers who think NAT=security can continue to use IPv4.  Noone is forcing
them to use IPv6.

Yes I do think every home LAN should get a /48, and a static one.  That
means the ISP needs a lot more than a /32 though.

Tim

On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 11:30:45AM +1000, Dan Reeder wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone