This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Jun 27 16:32:52 CEST 2007
Are you assuming that organizations never subnet inside a building ? In IPv6 if you want to keep things working, the minimum network is /64, so if somebody want to subnet, you need to give them something bigger, and current IETF recommendations are still /48, as per RFC3177. Regards, Jordi > De: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2003 at ssd.axu.tm> > Organización: Axu TM Oy > Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net> > Fecha: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:41:54 +0300 > Para: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> > Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address > Allocation and Assignment Policy) > > Hello, > >> And which prefix size does the organization get then? There are enough >> end-site organizations that can easily justify a /42 worth of address >> space, 64 /48's isn't that much if you give every separate building >> where you have an office a /48 and those offices can definitely be >> considered sites. Easy is great, but there should be a possibility for >> sites to request a bit more. > > Hmm ... /48 shouldn't be the lower bound for organization internal > site subnetting. It should be /64. > > If every separate building needs several subnets and room to expand, > then they should be given 256 /64s (aka /56). Or if it can be shown > that some building really needs more, then perhaps a bigger block > can be justified. It would still be hard to convince me that an > organization would need sixtyfivethousand subnets in every building. > > Now, if the organization has more than 256 buildings, THEN it might > be reasonable to give the organization a bigger block than /48. > (Of course, there might be organizations that have very special > needs that have nothing to do with office buildings, and I'm not > commenting on those at all here.) > > I may be wrong, > > -- > Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy > Internetworking Consulting > Cellular: +358 45 670 2048 > World Wide Web: www.axu.tm > ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]