On Aug 6, 2011 2:11 AM, "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > I'm not the only person who prefers /48 and hopefully most ISPs will eventually > come around and realize that /56s don't really benefit anyone vs. /48s. > > Hurricane Electric has been handing out /48s upon request to our customers and > users of our IPv6 tunnel services. We do not anticipate changing that policy. > > Owen >
A lot of good that /48 will do while HE rides out their on going peering war and customers are missing a wide swath of the ipv6 routing table. Cb > On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > > Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen, but most ISPs seem to be > > zeroing in on a /56 for production. Though some ISPs are using /64 for > > their trials. > > > > Frank > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 12:21 PM > > To: Brian Mengel > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: IPv6 end user addressing > > > > /56 is definitely preferable to /64, but, /48 really is a better choice. > > > > /56 is very limiting for autonomous hierarchical deployments. > > > > It's not about number of subnets. It's about the ability to provide some > > flexibility > > in the breadth and depth of bit fields used for creating hierarchical > > topologies > > automatically. > > > > Owen > > > > On Aug 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Brian Mengel wrote: > > > >> In reviewing IPv6 end user allocation policies, I can find little > >> agreement on what prefix length is appropriate for residential end > >> users. /64 and /56 seem to be the favorite candidates, with /56 being > >> slightly preferred. > >> > >> I am most curious as to why a /60 prefix is not considered when trying > >> to address this problem. It provides 16 /64 subnetworks, which seems > >> like an adequate amount for an end user. > >> > >> Does anyone have opinions on the BCP for end user addressing in IPv6? > > >
