I guess there is a IETF requirement that says that SLAAC only works on /64, and same for ND. It is basically an axioma for the RIR to take that into account, as otherwise things will break. Just as Jan mentioned in his main few seconds ago. G/ -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ahmed Abu-Abed Sent: 19 July 2011 13:10 To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues) Currently the smallest network of physical devices (a home user's subnet) gets the largest block of addresses (/64 in size) from the LIR. There is a logic issue here. Thus we get the need for larger LIR IPv6 allocations. And dependencies on /64 subnets go beyond SLAAC and ND. If/when RIPE has a say on what happens beyond 2000::/3, where /64 subnets are required, then we can come up with ideas on smallest subnet size. Hardware should be sophisticated enough by then to handle such practical needs in case bit alignment is an issue. -Ahmed -------------------------------------------------- From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <jan@go6.si> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:32 PM To: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
On 7/19/11 11:25 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
You want to change how IPv6 SLAAC works? And ND?
that was my first thought also, but this can't be the idea that Ahmed proposed, it's a bit too far from reality :)
Cheers, Jan