Re: IPv6 end user addressing

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Brian Mengel wrote:
>
> > In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little
> > agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end
> > users.  /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being
> > slightly preferred.
>
> Not slightly preferred, very much preferred. /56 is future proof and works for "everybody". /64 is short sighted and 
> doesn't allow for multiple networks in the home.
I would say /56 is slightly preferred and that /48 is very much preferred.

> > I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying
> > to address this problem.  It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems
> > like an adequate amount for an end user.
>
> Why save on addresses, you can just get more IPv6 addresses if you need them. /56 is allowed per user from all the 
> RIRs afaik.

All RIRs allow /48s actually. Some policies measure in increments of /56, BUT, even those policies
consider issuing a customer a /48 to be a valid use of 256 /56s for measurement purposes.

> > Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6?
>
> Yes, there are plenty of people with opinions.
>
> This has been hashed over and over and over again, please check the archives for lots of discussions on pros an cons. 
> If you want to do it right, go for /56, it works.

If you really want to do it right, go for /48… It works better.

Owen

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: