Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Hello,
And which prefix size does the organization get then? There are enough end-site organizations that can easily justify a /42 worth of address space, 64 /48's isn't that much if you give every separate building where you have an office a /48 and those offices can definitely be considered sites. Easy is great, but there should be a possibility for sites to request a bit more.
Hmm ... /48 shouldn't be the lower bound for organization internal site subnetting. It should be /64. If every separate building needs several subnets and room to expand, then they should be given 256 /64s (aka /56). Or if it can be shown that some building really needs more, then perhaps a bigger block can be justified. It would still be hard to convince me that an organization would need sixtyfivethousand subnets in every building. Now, if the organization has more than 256 buildings, THEN it might be reasonable to give the organization a bigger block than /48. (Of course, there might be organizations that have very special needs that have nothing to do with office buildings, and I'm not commenting on those at all here.) I may be wrong, -- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy Internetworking Consulting Cellular: +358 45 670 2048 World Wide Web: www.axu.tm
Are you assuming that organizations never subnet inside a building ? In IPv6 if you want to keep things working, the minimum network is /64, so if somebody want to subnet, you need to give them something bigger, and current IETF recommendations are still /48, as per RFC3177. Regards, Jordi
De: Aleksi Suhonen <ripe-ml-2003@ssd.axu.tm> Organización: Axu TM Oy Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:41:54 +0300 Para: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Hello,
And which prefix size does the organization get then? There are enough end-site organizations that can easily justify a /42 worth of address space, 64 /48's isn't that much if you give every separate building where you have an office a /48 and those offices can definitely be considered sites. Easy is great, but there should be a possibility for sites to request a bit more.
Hmm ... /48 shouldn't be the lower bound for organization internal site subnetting. It should be /64.
If every separate building needs several subnets and room to expand, then they should be given 256 /64s (aka /56). Or if it can be shown that some building really needs more, then perhaps a bigger block can be justified. It would still be hard to convince me that an organization would need sixtyfivethousand subnets in every building.
Now, if the organization has more than 256 buildings, THEN it might be reasonable to give the organization a bigger block than /48. (Of course, there might be organizations that have very special needs that have nothing to do with office buildings, and I'm not commenting on those at all here.)
I may be wrong,
-- Aleksi Suhonen / Axu TM Oy Internetworking Consulting Cellular: +358 45 670 2048 World Wide Web: www.axu.tm
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Hi, On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:32:52AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Are you assuming that organizations never subnet inside a building ?
In IPv6 if you want to keep things working, the minimum network is /64, so if somebody want to subnet, you need to give them something bigger, and current IETF recommendations are still /48, as per RFC3177.
There's nothing in the IETF recommendations that says "per building". So giving a customer a /48, and having that customer assign /56s out of that space to individual buildings, and taking /64s from there to individual LAN networks, is a perfectly workable approach. Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
No, I didn't meant /48 per building, it was only the reply to the "building" thing comment, but /48 per customer, as you say. Regards, Jordi
De: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Responder a: <gert@Space.Net> Fecha: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:45:41 +0200 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 Last Call for Comments (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:32:52AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Are you assuming that organizations never subnet inside a building ?
In IPv6 if you want to keep things working, the minimum network is /64, so if somebody want to subnet, you need to give them something bigger, and current IETF recommendations are still /48, as per RFC3177.
There's nothing in the IETF recommendations that says "per building".
So giving a customer a /48, and having that customer assign /56s out of that space to individual buildings, and taking /64s from there to individual LAN networks, is a perfectly workable approach.
Gert Doering -- APWG chairs -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
participants (3)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Gert Doering -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ