nanog mailing list archives
Re: Another v6 question
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:25:28 +1100
In message <AANLkTinDQdH5Z==mbYvm-OstA2m-WVkxo7vKyLc8x7vf () mail gmail com>, Per Carlson writes:
Hi Owen.The downside is that it doesn't provide enough bits for certain kinds of =auto-topologymanagement that are being considered by CE vendors. I highly recommend /4=8 instead. I've seen this claim (you need a /48) from your side several times, but never seen any explanation why a /56 won't work. Is there any requirement that sub-delegations must happen on 8-bit boundaries? AFAICS there is at least nothing in the RFC. Wouldn't for example a nibble boundary work equally well (splitting a /56 into 16 /60s, each containing 16 /64s)? I don't challenge the claim, I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind it.
There is a model where the down stream CPE devices always request powers of two prefixes. It doesn't take many CPE devices daisy chained to exhaust 8 bits. The other model is to just request as many /64 as needed using multiple requests with different identifiers. You can daisy chain out past the limits of IPv6 to route packets with that model. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: Another v6 question, (continued)
- Re: Another v6 question Max Pierson (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Mark Smith (Jan 30)
- Re: Another v6 question Jared Mauch (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Owen DeLong (Jan 27)
- /64 is "enough" until 2021 for 90% of users (was Re: Another v6 question) Jared Mauch (Jan 27)
- Re: /64 is "enough" until 2021 for 90% of users (was Re: Another v6 question) Mark Smith (Jan 30)
- Re: Another v6 question Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Owen DeLong (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Per Carlson (Jan 28)
- Re: Another v6 question Mark Andrews (Jan 28)
- Re: Another v6 question Jimmy Hess (Jan 27)
- Re: Another v6 question Jack Bates (Jan 27)