• Contact us
• APNIC website

• A^–
• A⁺

• Mailing Archives
• Back to APNIC website

• Date Prev
• Date Next
• Thread Prev
• Thread Next
• Date Index
• Thread Index

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

• To: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego dot net>, Usman Latif <osmankh at yahoo dot com>, "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
• Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
• From: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego dot net>
• Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:47:59 +0000
• Accept-language: en-US
• Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
• In-reply-to: <CA996512.4723F%skeeve at eintellego dot net>
• 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>
• Thread-index: AQHMdE2HU/ufrfHZz06f31HEUiknbpVPHY6AgAC1sACAAABLgA==
• Thread-topic: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses
• User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.12.0.110505

I seem to have just repeated most of what AJ just said. ...Skeeve   -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego dot net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego at facebook dot com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei On 16/09/11 8:46 PM, "Skeeve Stevens" <Skeeve at eintellego dot net> wrote: Hey Usman, As you were just at the AUSNOG conference, if you posted on the AUSNOG list you may get the opinions from those at the conference you attended – and why they are choosing to do it that way. I think the primary driver of /64 is to support EUI64, and as such most are going longer – to a 56, or perhaps a 48 to allow for multiple networks at the same site… although it does feel like an awful lot of space, it seems reasonable given the availability of the space and the preference to allow SLAAC to function. ...Skeeve   -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego dot net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego at facebook dot com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei On 16/09/11 7:56 PM, "Usman Latif" <osmankh at yahoo dot com> wrote: Hi Skeeve, Could you please relay my query to the APNIC-TALK list ? I dont have the email address for them. I am willing to participate on any current forum which discusses the address assignment recommendations. In my opinion, stateless autoconfiguration is little justification (to start assigning /64s for end-customers) when it comes to the issue of address exhaustion which was the main driver to come up with a 128 bit address space. If we start assigning /64s to end-customers right from day-zero, we are effectively halving the whole 128 bit address space and making all the vital /64s unavailable for use in future. We can always ask vendors to modify the stateless autoconfiguration algorithm and look into slightly more conservative addressing scheme. And we all know how difficult it is to reclaim address spaces from customers once they have deployed them. We are talking about assigning 2^64 addresses to potentially small-scale customers ?? I don't understand the justification there. Randy Bush: Yes I have read RFC 6177 and I am mainly concerned about its recommendations of assigning /64s - some ISPs in Australia are now taking these recommendations and assigning even residential edge customers with a /64 IPv6 space (I found this out after participating in AUS-NOG conference and was alarmed by this). I can be reached on the following: Usman Latif Senior Network Engineer Uecomm (Singtel-Optus Limited) Phone: +61 2 8085 3212 Email: ulatif at uecomm dot com dot au Sydney, Australia regards Usman Latif From: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego dot net> To: Usman Latif <osmankh at yahoo dot com>; "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net> Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses Hi Usman, This is a good question and worth discussing.  But, it should be discussed in perhaps the apnic-talk list, not the sig-policy list, which is for policy related discussion. Let's take it over there, and let the discussion begin! …Skeeve APNIC Sig-Policy Co-Chair   -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego dot net ; www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego at facebook dot com twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia -- eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call - Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei On 16/09/11 6:09 PM, "Usman Latif" <osmankh at yahoo dot com> wrote: Hi, I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ?? In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space. Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking? IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough. regards Usman * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next Date Index Thread Index Prev by Date: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses Next by Date: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses Previous by thread: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses Next by thread: Re: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6 addresses Index(es): Date Thread © 1999 - 2010 APNIC Pty. Ltd. ABN 42 081 528 010