[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Randy,

May be I'm reading "hardwired" in a different way/context.

For me, in an end-user network (in this context a residential customer), the
/64 must not be subnetted, if we want to keep things working automatically
(privacy, autoconfiguration, etc.). If we want to get rid off supporting
users problems with NAT, and then decide to start breaking things in IPv6
... we are then loosing part of the advantages.

I agree that in some context, such as point-to-point links, we can use /126,
but I still believe is better to keep using /64 for those cases in order to
ensure that some features also work there.

Also, my understanding is that all the OS and router implementations that
I've tried, will support a manual configuration of subnets ignoring the /64
boundary, but again, then automatic things don't work anymore.

So may be "hardwired" is not correct (even may be is actually the case in
sensors or small devices, embedded OSs, which will rely only in
autoconfiguration because can't be manually configured), but the
meaning/context used by Lea is still the same: Subnetting a /64 in local
area networks is contraindicated and is against RFC4291 and must not be used
as a way to extend the addressing space instead of allocating a bigger
address block.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:45:25 -1000
> Para: Lea Roberts <lea.roberts at stanford.edu>
> CC: "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6
> assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call
> 
>>>> the /64 boundary is hardwired in a lot of places and so that is
>>>> contraindicated.
>>> it was specified NOT to be hardwired.
>> I haven't tried it...  I know in the discussions leading up to 2005-8,
>> that there are alot of mechanisms, some previously specified by Jordi
> 
> uh, as much as i like jordi, he does not specify ip architecture
> 
>> that have been specified assuming the /64 boundary, so trying to move that
>> would have had a high pain ratio.
> 
> a - it is specifically NOT specified in architecture.  architecture
>     specifically says (or used to say) that it should not be a hard
>     boundary in implementations.
> 
> b - many of us use p2p links of /126 today
> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.