North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Where is this being discussed? What sizing is being discussed? I'm expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than one device on a connection (of course that would be followed immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened).On 10-aug-2005, at 15:06, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:Well, if you want to be really environmentally conscious, do away with that /126 too and just use link-locals, with a single global address per router for management and the generation of ICMPs.You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do withand you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the link-locals?)
There is a draft pending in the IETF V6OPS WG (draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt) that relies heavily on the fact that everyone and his dog gets a /48 to justify the reasons IPv6 solves the world's problems that were previously solved to varying extents by NAT boxes. If the /48 thing is being discussed somewhere, that would significantly alter the underpinnings of the draft's arguments.