Hi all, Thank you for your work on this Jordi, and to you Nathalie for reaching out to the community to seek input and clarification. While I do not know the ins and outs of the technical side of IPv6, I care enough about its deployment worldwide and know enough about policy to understand that incongruent policy -- either in practice or on paper -- can often create a rather massive headache. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia Independent consultant & editor 2015 ISOC IGF Ambassador Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:33 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi Nathalie,
If it helps, the survey (http://survey.consulintel.es/index.php/175122) responses indicate right now (from 703 responses, about 200 from RIPE, missing responses from Russia that has got very few), only 76 ISPs providing /64, the rest is shared almost 50/50 among /48 and /56.
I will try to get responses from Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea, China and India, which I guess have some deployment and almost didn’t responded at the time being.
Then at the end of June, I will “clean” up duplicate responses (some times several folks respond from the same ISP).
Regards, Jordi
-----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Nathalie Trenaman < nathalie@ripe.net> Responder a: <nathalie@ripe.net> Fecha: lunes, 13 de junio de 2016, 4:53 Para: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [ipv6-wg] RIPE Policy vs IETF RFC
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.
Nathalie Künneke-Trenaman IPv6 Program Manager RIPE NCC
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company
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.