|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6 Address Planning
In a message written on Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:51:41PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
> Where is this being discussed? What sizing is being discussed? I'm
> expecting in the long run some ISPs will hand out /128s in the hope
> that this will once and for all keep customers from putting more than
> one device on a connection (of course that would be followed
> immediately by implementations of NATv6 if it happened).
This is a topic of heated discussion at the various RIR meetings,
ARIN for most people on this list. Note the next ARIN meeting is
with a Nanog, so you might want to stick around (show up early?).
In an attempt to be objective, I'll say that there is a line in the
sand between the IETF and the RIR's, and right now both groups seem
to think the other is stepping over the line, and making the wrong
decisions. The IETF seems to think /48 is good, thinks it's extremely
unlikely we'll ever run out of space, and considers that if we do
in 50 years it's probably ok, time for a new protocol anyway. The
RIR's seem to think smaller (/56? /64? /96?) prefixes are good,
that we will run out of space under the current plan it's simply a
question of when, that deploying a new protocol in 50 years is a
bad idea if we can avoid it, and with sane policies we can.
Add in operators and their various opinions of NAT, how many addresses
a user should get, if auto configuration is good bad or ugly, if
you still need DHCP with auto configuration and soforth and you have
quite a mess with no group clearly "leading in the polls".
--
Leo Bicknell - [email protected] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [email protected], www.tmbg.org
Attachment:
pgp00012.pgp
|