Hi, On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:52:07PM +0200, John Wells wrote:
Here's a message from the IPv6 WG listserv. This should start some discussion..
Why? [..]
Hello all,
In a very recent RIPE meeting 1st May, Mirjam K|hne and Randy Bush presented the following on on IPv6 Address allocation policies:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/ipv6develop/
Among others, on slide 8, "ISP to Customer" there is:
--- * 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. [..] Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299