Subject: Re: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:27:57 +0100

Steve Deering wrote:
> 
> At 2:07 PM +0100 1/24/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124
> >if you really want to...
> 
> Actually, it is, at least for unicast addresses that do not start with
> binary 000; see earlier message from me.

How would you know I was doing it, from outside a site?

   Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 16:59:19 -0800

Steve

---

From: David Terrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 23:23:51 -0800

> How would you know I was doing it, from outside a site?

You couldn't, of course.  It's forbidden, but not enforced.

-- 
David Terrell   | "I am pleased that after years of this Administration's 
Nebcorp PM      | strident opposition to the free and open use and 
[email-masked]    | exportation of American encryption technology, the 
wwn.nebcorp.com | Administration finally has listened to those of us in 
**use OpenBSD** | Congress who long have urged | export decontrol to enable 
www.openbsd.org | American industry to compete in this important and dynamic 
EFNet #openbsd  | worldwide market." - Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., 9/17/1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:39:06 -0800

> JJ Behrens wrote:
> Please forgive me for being a newbie, but it seems wise to
> allow subnetting of the lower 64 bits. Afterall, it would
>  be terrible if my dialup ISP assigned a /64 to me, and I
>  had to rely on some IPv6 mythical NAT to do subnetting!

I don't think this will happen. IPv6 ISPs currently assign
/48 prefixes (see www.freenet6.net for example) which gives
you 65536 subnets to play. Besides, doing subnets on a dial-up
connection looks rather overkill to me.

Michel.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:07:28 +0100

Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124
if you really want to - but doing so at /48 is more likely to be
supported by all products. If I was an implementor, I certainly
wouldn't worry if a /124 prefix kicked me onto a slow path, as long
as prefixes from /3 to /64 were handled optimally.

   Brian