[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12
On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> If you can get 6rd to fit in single /16, then, perhaps we could consider allowing it to be permanent.
> However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd /24s, then, you're talking about the vast majority of an entire /12 just in the ARIN region.
> Why not we make it a /28, and thus give the customer a /60? The customer still gets 16 subnets for his house, and when 6rd goes away (since, as you point out there are other disadvantages beyond address space use compared to native IPv6), then the subnet will be /56 (since, following your reasoning, that is what competitors with native IPv6 access will be providing).
/60s are horrible... They completely stifle any ability for the customer to do PD-based topology
within the site.
> I would point out that the only ISP I am aware of that is conducting residential trials of IPv6 seems to be talking about giving only a /64 to the home by default due to CPE issues. To me, that is a much greater problem than having a /60 instead of a /56, because with a /64 you can't do any subnetting at all.
True... /64 should be even more discouraged than /60, but, the reality is that we should look at
/56 as a temporary expedient due to inefficiencies in 6rd and consider /48 the norm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...