Reading this thread, and building on many comments to a previous one, I definitely see the need for subnetting a /64 arising sooner than later.
It might not be perfect, It might be ugly, but it will happen. And, if you ask me, I would rather subnet a /64 than end up with a ipv6 version of NAT, a much worse alternative. cheers, Carlos On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Brzozowski, John <john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > In order to deploy /56 to end users would require an IPv6 /24 be dedicated > to 6rd, /48s would require a dedicated IPv6 /16. This assumes an operator > wants/needs to provide IPv6 via 6rd to end users where their IPv4 address > is fully unique. There is quite a bit of IPv6 address space that does not > gets utilized in this model. > > The routers we are using as part of the trials only support /64 as such we > are using an IPv6 /32. > > It is also important that operators plan for the ability to delegate > prefixes that are shorter than a /64. There are several cases that we > have seen where the router can only make use of a /64. This is better > than nothing when referring to legacy devices that have been able to > introduce some support for IPv6 and would have otherwise been IPv4 only > devices. > > John > ========================================= > John Jason Brzozowski > Comcast Cable > e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com > o) 609-377-6594 > m) 484-962-0060 > w) http://www.comcast6.net > ========================================= > > > > > On 1/26/11 5:02 PM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >>On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> >>> Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks >>> delivery of ipv6 in North America? >>> >>> I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly >>> looked into 6rd. Is this a dead end path/giant hack? >>> >>> >>>https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/05_Chase_Googl >>>econf-BroadbandtransitiontoIPv6using6rd.pdf?attredirects=0 >>> >>It's a fairly ugly way to deliver IPv6, but, as transition technologies >>go, it's the least dead-end of the options. >> >>It at least provides essentially native dual stack environment. The >>only difference is that your IPv6 access is via a tunnel. You'll probably >>be limited to a /56 or less over 6rd, unfortunately, but, because of the >>awful way 6rd consumes addresses, handing out /48s would be >>utterly impractical. Free.fr stuck their customers with /60s, which is >>hopefully a very temporary situation. >> >>> >>> I spoke with impulse.net last year, which appears to serve large >>> portions of the AT&T cable plant in Southern California. They were >>> willing to offer native ipv6. Not sure how (one /64, a /48) etc. >>> >>You should definitely push your providers to give you a /48 if >>possible. If /56 or worse /60 or worst of all, /64 become widespread >>trends, it may significantly impact, delay, or even prevent innovations >>in the end-user networking/consumer electronics markets. >> >>Owen >> >> > > > -- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =========================
