On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie@ripe.net> wrote:
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.
I would say, please don't mix implementation with actual usage. I can run 100 000 x /128 internal while only have 2 x /48 external. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no