[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3177-bis
1. The idea is that ISPs MAY deploy prefixes that exceed /48; NOT that
they MUST do it (your employer will remain free to avoid doing it).
For this, the advice of IAB/IESG to RIRs expressed in RFC 3177 MUST be
updated in some way. (revised, modified, deprecated... whatever.)
2. There was, back in 2001, what has been felt as a majority of reasons
for the "one size fits all" recommendation.
But, now in 2008, none of these reasons has become decisive, and reasons
to recommend "flexible prefix lengths" have become more numerous and
more decisive.
One of the new reasons is that deployment of longer than /48 prefixes
has actually taken place, indeed pleasing both customers and their ISP.
A /48 is, that is a fact, better for a customer site than longer a
prefix, but having IPv6, be it with a longer prefix, is much better than
having no IPv6.
3. Personnaly, I now use IPv6 on a regular basis, in particular to reach
Google and the IETF site, which I use frequently. Thanks for this to the
open attitude of my ISP on prefix lengths (and to the user friendly dual
stack of Apple in Mac OS X).
Regards.
Rémi
Mark Smith wrote :
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
in another thread that said I thought that there were business cases
for the use of /64, /60, /56, /48, and /44. I don't see a strong
argument that one size in fact fits all, or that there should be.
I *really* like the
simplicity of a single, common prefix length for nearly all customer
end-sites.
I see the single /48 allocation size in that light.
managing two end-site prefix lengths /48s and /56s will probably double
my employer's end-site addressing management costs.