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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
gvandeve at cisco.com
Tue Jul 19 13:25:38 CEST 2011
I guess there is a IETF requirement that says that SLAAC only works on /64, and same for ND. It is basically an axioma for the RIR to take that into account, as otherwise things will break. Just as Jan mentioned in his main few seconds ago. G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed Sent: 19 July 2011 13:10 To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) Currently the smallest network of physical devices (a home user's subnet) gets the largest block of addresses (/64 in size) from the LIR. There is a logic issue here. Thus we get the need for larger LIR IPv6 allocations. And dependencies on /64 subnets go beyond SLAAC and ND. If/when RIPE has a say on what happens beyond 2000::/3, where /64 subnets are required, then we can come up with ideas on smallest subnet size. Hardware should be sophisticated enough by then to handle such practical needs in case bit alignment is an issue. -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan at go6.si> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:32 PM To: <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) > On 7/19/11 11:25 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote: >> You want to change how IPv6 SLAAC works? And ND? > > that was my first thought also, but this can't be the idea that Ahmed > proposed, it's a bit too far from reality :) > > Cheers, Jan >
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]