Hurricane Electric's IPv6 Tunnel Broker Forums

General IPv6 Topics => IPv6 Basics & Questions & General Chatter => Topic started by: cconn on April 13, 2011, 12:22:11 PM

Title: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: cconn on April 13, 2011, 12:22:11 PM
thank god.  6177 is the new recommendation.

http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6177.txt 

Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: Mierdin on April 13, 2011, 04:26:56 PM
I never understood the old RFC - this new one is far more logical.
Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: revellion on May 07, 2011, 06:05:43 AM
Seems more well thought out. i could live with as an end-user to get a /56, whereas i can see that larger organisations could want atleast /48 from an ISP.

/56 with 8 bits for subnet which be ~256 subnets for a home user more than well covers the possible 2 subnets minimum for one for wired and one for wireless in the cases they are not bridged..., and you'd still have ~254 subnets to toy with for the more enthusiastic users like myself. i barely max out with using more than 50-60 good old 192.168.0.0/24's with my laboratory VPN-BGP net so it should be sufficient.
Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: cconn on May 07, 2011, 07:55:35 AM
a brief discussion I had with Owen DeLong had me notice he still believes /56 is heresy and /48 for the home user should be the preferred prefix size for ISPs....hmm.
Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: cholzhauer on May 07, 2011, 06:13:50 PM
Did Owen say why he thought that?
Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: stolen on May 07, 2011, 11:08:11 PM
Likely future proofing for the "internet of things". Eventually, home users may want to have different subsets of "things" on different subnets. (Media centers, light switches, kitchen appliances, security devices, mobile devices, inventory (which could be broken down into other subsets, clothes, food, toys), etc)
256 subnets may be too few for that.

However, from an ISP perspective, 65K /48's in a /32 means I'd need a lot of /32's to cover my user base.  Yes, there are a lot of /32's in the first /3, but it's a lot of administration that could be removed if we just used /56's (which would give us enough subnets in 1 /32 to more than cover our particular user base).  And the "internet of things" is a long way off from a budgetary perspective. :)

Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: chandro on May 13, 2011, 09:21:46 AM
i still thinking /56 is a lot!, if the ISP get a /32, and give each customer /64 or /56 can be good.

i have a /48 and i only use 10-15 ips.

is not so funny like ipv4 when i start and have many ips 30-60 or more, now there is a billions of ips, and i use less..
Title: Re: RFC 3177 obsoleted
Post by: cconn on May 13, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
i still thinking /56 is a lot!, if the ISP get a /32, and give each customer /64 or /56 can be good.

i have a /48 and i only use 10-15 ips.

is not so funny like ipv4 when i start and have many ips 30-60 or more, now there is a billions of ips, and i use less..

well our current testbed is using /64 for PtP links to the customer, and a /56 can be assigned over DHCP-PD.  I think Mr Delong is maintaining the /48 mantra since there will (if visionaries are correct) be an explosion of devices that will require IPs.  I have been doing IPv4 for more than 15 years, so trying to get out of the v4 overalls and into v6 might be my problem as to why I don't see the point in assigning even more than a /64 to an end-user (residential anyway...)