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/bcop@ripe.net/
[bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Next message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jørgensen
rogerj at gmail.com
Sun Nov 9 13:54:07 CET 2014
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 12:47 PM, William Waites <wwaites at tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > I've started writing here: > > https://pad.okfn.org/p/bcop-small-ipv6 > > Today, a couple of paragraphs about the intended audience before > getting into the meat of it. It's a good start, but could you rewrite the part on "Address Allocation" ".... ipv6 not so different (only forget scarcity and use /64 by default and /56 or /48 if requested" I guess the allocation should be replaced with assignment toward end-users as a starter, then the next thing is the size you mention. Giving a /64 toward end-users will break many things, it will break homenet design (IETF homenet) and not to forget it's against the original intention when we relaxed the /48-for-everyone. Probably biggest clue for this is the HD-Ratio in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 "In IPv6, "utilisation" is only measured in terms of the bits to the left of the efficiency measurement unit (/56)." Replace it with something along this "by default give everyone a /56, on request a /48". It is really that simple. some background on the /56 size. Sometime before 2005 a discussion started if /48 for everyone was too strict, not so much about wasteful but more than anyone ever would need. After some back and forth RIPE changed it in 2005, the earliest document I found was 2005-08. I've tried to fill a /48 on just my own stuff in many ways but it's almost impossible, a /56 on the other hand is possible to fill but it's hard. I did tunnels between several machines I own/control, vpn so I could inside my own network, each service and LAN that got a /64 etc. It is documented quite a few more places than just in RIPE documents. The original intention was that we thought /56 was the right and recommended (lower cases) sizes for regular end-users. /48 was the right size for bigger end-users like enterprises. Over the years through rewrites it seems to have been relaxes so it's not that easy to see that it was ment as a recommanded (lower cases) on assigments sizes. I guess the reason for it being lower case is that none can dictate how an ISP/or anyone should do their assigment of the address space, only thing was to make an recommendation. Here is a few documents that mention the /56 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-why64/?include_text=1 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-08 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-589 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-considerations-00 -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj at gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger at jorgensen.no
- Previous message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
- Next message (by thread): [bcop] IPv6 deployment for small residential providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ BCOP Archives ]