On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 12/10/2012 03:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Dec 10, 2012, at 2:04 PM, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> >> wrote: >> >>> On 12/10/2012 01:27 PM, Schiller, Heather A wrote: >>>> I think most folks would agree that, IPv4 /32 :: IPv6 /128 as >>>> IPv4 /29 :: IPv6 /64 >>> >>> Quite the opposite in fact. In IPv6 a /64 is roughly equivalent to >>> a /32 in IPv4. As in, it's the smallest possible assignment that >>> will allow an end-user host to function under normal >>> circumstances. >> >> No, you could be assigned a /128 and have it function for a single >> host. > > You saw how I very carefully phrased my statement to try to avoid this kind > of ratholing, right? :) > >> However, let's not start doing that as it's pretty brain-dead >> and the reality is that hardly anyone has a single host any more. >> >> Heather has the corollaries correct. > > You're entitled to your opinion of course, just don't be surprised when > people disagree with you. > Regardless of how you phrase it, the functional IPv6 equivalent of an IPv4 /32 is an IPv6 /128. You don't configure a /64 on a loopback interface in a router, for example, you configure a /128. >>> SWIP or rwhois for a /64 seems excessive to me, FWIW. >> >> I'm not sure I disagree, but, I certainly don't feel strongly enough >> about it to submit a policy proposal. I will say that you are far >> more likely to get this changed by submitting a policy proposal than >> you are by complaining to NANOG about it. > > I certainly don't care enough about it to do that, I was just voicing an > opinion. > > Doug (personally I'd be happy just to have native IPv6 available) I'm loving mine. Owen
