Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>]

In article <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001AB7722 () E03MVC4-UKBR domain1 systemhost net> you write:
> > > I'd rather push for /48 and have people settle on /56 than push for=20
> > > /56 and have people settle on /64.
> > =20
> > Again, why the hang-up on 8 bit boundaries?
>
> Look, why are we arguing about this? Why not split
> the difference? If /48 is too big and /64 is too small,
> let's go halfway and use /56, OK?
>
> This has the advantage that it is on a 4 bit nibble=20
> boundary which makes it the boundary between network
> and interface much clearer in writing
> 2001:3ff3:effe:1200::0/56=20
> If you wrote 2001:3ff3:effe:12a0::0/56 then I would=20
> immediately see that there are too many bits in the network
> portion. It also avoids a messy situation with reverse
> DNS delegations.

        And /48 is easier still.

        2001:3ff3:effe:1234:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx
        <--ASSIGNED-->:<ME>:<------auto------->

> In the end, the decision had to be made to but the boundary
> somewhere, and with 16 bits to be divided plus the need to
> use 4-bit boundaries, the choices were (4,12), (8,8), and
> (12,4). Split the difference was the least objectionable.
>
> ARIN's decision on this boundary point has since been accepted
> by two other RIRs, so it seems to be community consensus now.
>
> --Michael Dillon