<html><head><meta name="Generator" content="Z-Push"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body><SPAN style="font-size: 11pt"><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div><br></div><div>Hi Joe,</div><div><br></div><div>Excuse my brevity.</div><div><br></div><div>A lot of the IPv6 features rely on one having a /64 subnet. SLAAC (for all intents, a necessity at home) relies on the subnet being a /64 for one, due to the way local addresses are generated, for example.</div><div><br></div><div>Happy to be corrected on this by anyone smarter than yours truly :)</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:9px;color:#575757">Sent from my Samsung GALAXY S5 on the Telstra 4G network</div></div><div></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Joseph Goldman <joe@apcs.com.au> <br>Date:2014/07/02 21:32 (GMT+10:00) <br>To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net <br>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link" <br><br></SPAN>Hi Mark,<BR><BR> Going a bit off-topic, towards IPv6 in general as I'm still catching <BR>up on the standards of use for IPv6, but I am yet to understand the <BR>reason for recommendations to give such large blocks to customers?<BR><BR> You talk about a /64 being handed out to customers, even this I found <BR>exceptionally large for a home, which even with smart devices becoming <BR>the norm would you say its likely to reach 100 needed IP's? let alone <BR>thousands?<BR><BR> You go on to say other RFC's are even trying to recommend /56's, or <BR>even /48 to be better by your own personal opinion. Why so large? Why <BR>not /96's or even smaller?<BR><BR> I'm in no way knocking the idea, I am genuinely curious as to the <BR>reasons behind the recommendations.<BR><BR>Thanks in advance!<BR>Joe<BR><BR>On 02/07/14 21:14, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:<BR>> Hi,<BR>><BR>> The following recently published RFC might be of interest to people on this list.<BR>><BR>> RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"<BR>><BR>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278<BR>><BR>> Earlier versions of the 3GPP standards (i.e., basically mobile phone data standards) didn't recognise or realise that smartphones would also be able to temporarily become IP routers/Wifi hotspots, and therefore didn't specify DHCPv6-PD. This RFC describes how to take a /64 from the phone to carrier link and use it/share it with the phone's Wifi LAN interface when the phone is acting as an IPv6 router. It may seem a bit obscure, however it provides some examples of how IPv6's capabilities can be used to novelly overcome this limitation. It certainly isn't a recommendation to give a customer a single /64 rather than many of them (i.e., as per RFC6177, a /56, or better IMO, a /48 as per the considerations in RFC3177), but it does show how that can be worked around with some limitations.<BR>><BR>> Regards,<BR>> Mark.<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> AusNOG mailing list<BR>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>AusNOG mailing list<BR>AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<BR></body></html>