[ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie at ripe.net> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> As you might know, the current IPv6 policy states very clear that assignments to customers must be a minimum of a /64.
>
> 5.4.1. Assignment address space size
>
> End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (only one subnet is anticipated for the End Site).
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655
>
> On the other hand, a while ago, RFC7608 (BCP198) was published, stating:
>
> 2.  Recommendation
>    IPv6 implementations MUST conform to the rules specified in
>    Section 5.1 of [RFC4632].
>
>    Decision-making processes for forwarding MUST NOT restrict the length
>    of IPv6 prefixes by design.  In particular, forwarding processes MUST
>    be designed to process prefixes of any length up to /128, by
>    increments of 1.
>
> In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should be a /64.
> I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if alignment between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed.

I would say, please don't mix implementation with actual usage. I can
run 100 000 x /128 internal while only have 2 x /48 external.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no