Re: [apnic-talk] New RIPE BCOP: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non-persistent, and what size to choose

  • To: APNIC Mailing List <apnic-talk@apnic.net>
  • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] New RIPE BCOP: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non-persistent, and what size to choose
  • From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:39:12 +0200
  • Delivered-to: apnic-talk@clove.apnic.net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1508168355; x=1508773155; q=dns/txt; h=DomainKey-Signature: Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic: References:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type: Content-transfer-encoding:Reply-To; bh=muGipSPLY+Z8yDgTTRjAiLsSN t63EpfSyyT6Ixb5VK8=; b=rqkOa32GVFdLL7aVfhCYSpexClYht9CAxj5LRcbFk hS/G7Otg1aKOzyi8XGkL7xWBmnDfaVl0m6+5TkbgcZ4yRN7jC4ccOFccb5vvu8OJ XXPG0P0qGYIo2XitDkIL6PYZt7s0dhZQgxgTpcnB7vrmhuft5QY3WjElGy3kYV1V 2A=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=MDaemon; d=consulintel.es; c=simple; q=dns; h=from:message-id; b=L3sQ46pQ8D0Z7OVpvJDnKELn6u4IUuqo0MCNNUhUpli1Dy4ZXJ/f/lnO7Ujs XzNIsduebhm3mDb6IOC0Px35p+M7pb2p9TGZYPufSgwOgJNZls3NO+Yi2 BHP3FF5AeShhMLdDHbkZni7ywO6ydAsTStPIOOAftoXaGxTi8C59Gw=;
  • In-reply-to: <CAJ0+aXZA=CDLidNDeagGeMpjRP8yNNXp2t+pVncn9wj9dfg2bw@mail.gmail.com>
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
  • List-help: <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <B5C4350F-429C-4BA0-A2FD-42BD5F5F558F@consulintel.es> <CAJ0+aXZA=CDLidNDeagGeMpjRP8yNNXp2t+pVncn9wj9dfg2bw@mail.gmail.com>
  • Reply-to: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
  • Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] New RIPE BCOP: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non-persistent, and what size to choose
  • User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010

    • Actually, we also advocate for /48 for end-users, not just business.
      
      If you need to support homenet protocol (and it will be quite common in the next few years), it makes a lot of sense that at each residential the ISP provides a /48, so each downstream router has a /56.
      
      Regards,
      Jordi
       
      
      -----Mensaje original-----
      De: Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com>
      Responder a: <me@anuragbhatia.com>
      Fecha: lunes, 16 de octubre de 2017, 17:19
      Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
      CC: APNIC Mailing List <apnic-talk@apnic.net>
      Asunto: Re: [apnic-talk] New RIPE BCOP: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non-persistent, and what size to choose
      
          Hi Jordi 
          
          
          It looks good and I agree on /56 (at least) while /48 preferred for business users etc. I always suggest ISPs around to not do /64 as somehow many ISPs get blown away with a number of possible IPv6 addresses in /64 and assume /64 is just enough instead of thinking of /64 per link/VLAN logic. Regarding point to point recommendation I feel /64 per link makes sense. One may argue on /56 Vs /64 for customer allocation due to allocation by RIR but for point to point why not /64. Even if one ends up in burning entire /48, it gives 65k p2p links. The Larger operator can use a /46 or /44 for such task (and likely they would anyway have a /29 RIR allocation). 
          
          /127 makes it tricky to change network later. I know an ISP here in India who started deploying IPv6 with their NAS devices on different VLANs (for WAN of NAS) and later decided to actually share LAN since there were limited NAS boxes and they could trust their own NAS ended up in re-numbering entirely from /127 per link to /64 one link. If they used /64 in start itself, renumbering would never be needed. 
          
          Also, curious about how people manage VRRP (and similar) in /127 allocations. 
          
          
          
          
          Thanks again for sharing the document. 
          
          
          On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
          
          
          https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/
          
          Regards,
          Jordi
          
          
          
          
          **********************************************
          IPv4 is over
          Are you ready for the new Internet ?
          http://www.consulintel.es
          The IPv6 Company
          
          This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
          
          
          
          _______________________________________________
          apnic-talk mailing list
          apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net
          https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
          
          
          
          
          
          
          -- 
          
          
          Anurag Bhatia
          anuragbhatia.com <http://anuragbhatia.com>
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
          
      
      
      
      **********************************************
      IPv4 is over
      Are you ready for the new Internet ?
      http://www.consulintel.es
      The IPv6 Company
      
      This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.