[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Lea Roberts]

hi Owen -

On Mon, 16 May 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:

> > As for my personal opinion, yes I do think that the policy is perhaps
> > a bit too generous, especially in the case for more commodity style
> > Internet services like DSL/cable/dorm rooms/WLAN deployments.
> > Therefore, I think it would make sense to add a category for this kind
> > users which would broadly fit into what most people describe as "SOHO"
> > users.
>
> So... Just out of curiosity, what would your suggested policy for this
> class of users be?  I tend to think /64 and possibly a new /56 category,
> but, certainly I would have trouble thinking that relegating anyone
> who might match the SOHO category to being unable to qualify for multiple
> subnets is a bad idea.  I think the gains of octet boundaries are worth
> the tradeoffs (the dns hacks to handle VLSM IN-ADDR delegation really
> are hacky).

At the recent ARIN and RIPE meetings, the possiblity of adding a /56
assignment bucket was being openly discussed!

FWIW, reverse for IPv6 is done on hex digits (aka nibbles), so /60 and /52
assignments would not suffer from IN-ADDR "hacky-ness" (see rfc3596  :-)