North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?
In article <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B001AB7722@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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