North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 Address Planning

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Wed Aug 10 13:54:13 2005

At 09:46 AM 8/10/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

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.

and you ping the customer links how? (or did I miss the point of the
You don't. I don't think the point of link-locals has much to do with
pinging customers... But since IPv6 routing protocols work over link- locals you don't need global addresses.

If you want to ping your customers you should probably use a /126 so
they can only use the specific address you give them. You need that
anyway if you want to route a /48 or what have you to them.

BTW, there is discussion about rethinking /48s for customers in IPv6.
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).

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.