On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Let's clarify -- /48 is much preferred by Owen,
It's is also supported by RIR policy, and the RFC series. It would unfair to characterize owen as the only holder of that preference. > 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? > > >
