Sorry Randy,

My assumption was this list was to discuss actual policy as it pertains to the policy process of APNIC, not theory and general discussion, which would probably get more input on a wider lists like apnic-talk, ausnog, nanog, etc.  If the list turns into a generic discussion list with a high level of non-policy related traffic, it would become a challenge for the Chairs to assemble the views of the list as it related to actual policy.


...Skeeve

 

--

Skeeve Stevens, CEO - eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists

skeeve@eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383 ; Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego or eintellego@facebook.com

twitter.com/networkceoau ; www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve

PO Box 7726, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755 Australia


--

eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call

- Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Huawei


On 16/09/11 7:28 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:

I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's
decision

you have contradictory words in the same sentence, iana and logic.

could you point out ietf _recommending_ a /64 for residential customers?
to the best of my knowledge, the current ietf thinking is best codified
in RFC 6177.

IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough.

the downside of this would be that the customer could not use auto-conf
on their lan.  the general religion on the subject is that ipv6 space is
effectively infinite (a tenet to which i do not subscribe), and a very
large allocation, e.g. /48 or shorter, should be assigned to each
customer.

/56 and /48 are commonly used sizes.

and this is a perfectly good list on which to discuss this aspect of
addressing policy.

randy
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy