Subject: RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:56:42 -0800

folks, (I did a little inline regroup)

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> 1. Telling ISPs that they should give customers that want to subnet a

>> /48. (or tell customers that want to subnet that, if they don't get a

>> /48 from their ISP, they'd better shop somewhere else)

> Tony Hain wrote:
> We should also not forget to point out that they already have one or
> more /48's from the uncooperative ISP, simply by using 6to4.

Correct. These customers will also have one or more 6bone /48 blocks, so
it is unlikely, IMHO, that they would even try to deal with a /64.

>> Keith Moore wrote:
>> presuming, of course, that IPv4 service with a stable address is 
>> available at that time, and that the ISP doesn't filter 6to4 packets.

> Tony Hain wrote:
> In those cases Shipworm is the mechansim of choice. In any case we
need
> to be forcing the system to provide uninhibited IPv6 service to the
> applications. If ISPs try to prevent that it will cost them effort,
> and eventually customers.

Concur.

> Keith Moore wrote:
> By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up 
> autoconfig, private addresses, etc...  

Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ?

>> Robert Elz wrote:
>> I probably wouldn't either, though we don't want to totally forget 
>> allocation efficiency - the way we make sure that IPv6 never runs out

>> is to always make sure we justify every allocation (which doesn't
mean 
>> organisations need to justify their need for a /48 -
>> but I'd certainly be making any organisation asking for a 2nd one (in

>> the same aggregatable block,

> Peter Bieringer wrote:
> If this will happen, which organisation would this be? Compared with
> current IPv4 /48 with the 16 bits for SLA is similar to a IPv4 Class A
> network.
> Which organisation (not ISPs) uses more than one Class A network
*full*
> at the moment internally (means > 65k subnets)?

Perter is correct here.
A handful, and these will not have too much trouble getting a bigger
block.
And they will not be too difficult to weed out. If McDonalds come saying
"we need one more /48", maybe they need it. If Joe's Burgers comes
saying
he needs a /32, his request can be filed directly in the trashcan.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:07:39 -0500

> Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, on a /85 ?

you don't.  a site that chooses to subnet below /64 is inherently
choosing not to use stateless autoconfig.  but this is a choice for
that site to make, not for us to make on that site's behalf.  

you still haven't given a single argument in favor of not allowing 
sites to subnet below /64.

Keith