On Wed, 16 May 2001, Gert Doering wrote: [snip]
--- * IAB/IESG recommended /48. * Use a /128 where it is absolutely known that one and only one device is required, e.g. dialup [<--!!!!!!!] * Use a /64 when sure net will not be subnetted, e.g. a mobile phone given 802.11, bluetooth, etc. ---
I find this thinking, or at least the examples very flawed.
Anyone want to start implementing NATv6 for people whose ISP refuses to give enough addresses to you can't (sub)network your home?
The wording is perfectly clear: if you have more than one device, the ISP MUST give you a /64 (under that policy). If you have more than one subnet, the ISP MUST give you a /48.
Yes. I can already see the pricing: One device: 20$ 2+ devices: 40$ Network of devices: 60$ Would this kind of "voluntary" assignment work in practise? I wouldn't bet a penny on it; ISP's would just do /128 and write the customer contracts so that the other methods would not be possible in practise. Also, I do not see how a wireless device needs /64 when dial-up wouldn't. I think it's common today that e.g. 2 home computers share an internet connection. With mobiles and other gadgets going IP this might increase. If /128 assignment is the default, this by default would limit the options people are given. Someone frustrated with different pricing would write a hack to do NATv6. I don't think this should be encouraged. The rules should be set so that the default assignment is at least /64. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords