Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space

[Laurent GUERBY <laurent () guerby net>]

Hi,

On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 17:02 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We use LLA to "virtualize" interconnection to our users:
> > their network configuration is always static default via fe80::nnnn
> > and we route their /56 prefix to fe80::xxxx:yyyy where xxxx:yyyy is
> > unique per user - if our user want to do some routing of course.  Since
> > we don't have GUA interconnections we don't have to manage them inside
> > our AS and we can move user stuff around without having them changing
> > anything to their static configuration.
> >
> > We give a /56 IPv6 per /32 IPv4 to our user which does /48 = /24 = 256
> > "IP", it's nice to have more than one /64 around for some uses.
> >
> > Is there any "mass" hoster around that does provide by default a pefix
> > larger than /64 and that does route it to the user? It's quite simple to
> > do in IPv6 and we have the address space for it.

> Why not just give each end-site a /48?

We give a /48 on request, a /56 by default (and we never give a /64).

> An end-site with a /24 may only need a single or a few subnets while an end-site with a /32 may have a host of 
> subnets behind their IPv4 NAT gateway. Making IPv6 topological assumptions for your end-users based on their IPv4 
> presentation makes little sense to me and is likely a disservice to your end users.

The /56 subnets we give are for single machine in a rack, virtual
machine in a cluster or home router.

http://www.tunnelbroker.net/ gives by default /64 to a home router
and /48 on request we just decided to give /56 by default
and /48 on request.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first message.

Is there an agreed upon definition of "end site"?

Sincerely,

Laurent