Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addr

To: Usman Latif <osmankh at yahoo dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:28:55 +0200
Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <1316160581.25312.YahooMailNeo at web110211.mail.gq1 dot yahoo dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1316160581.25312.YahooMailNeo@web110211.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)

> decision

you have contradictory words in the same sentence, iana and logic.

could you point out ietf _recommending_ a /64 for residential customers?
to the best of my knowledge, the current ietf thinking is best codified
in RFC 6177.

> IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough.

the downside of this would be that the customer could not use auto-conf
on their lan.  the general religion on the subject is that ipv6 space is
effectively infinite (a tenet to which i do not subscribe), and a very
large allocation, e.g. /48 or shorter, should be assigned to each
customer.

/56 and /48 are commonly used sizes.

and this is a perfectly good list on which to discuss this aspect of
addressing policy.

randy