Re: [3gv6] Stateless Prefix Delegation I-D updated (draft-savolainen-stateless-pd)

[Antonio Querubin <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hmm.. but that problem is perhaps a problem only for the AC, right? I 
> mean for all provisioning, policy and charging (PCC) etc entities it is 
> just single /56 that needs to be considered per subscription, not a /56 
> and a /64?
>
>> What I described below has the upside that the third route does not
>> overlap with the others. It has of course the downside that it uses up
>> slightly more address space.
>
> .. and that PCC needs to consider both /56 and /64 for a single 
> subscription, whileas in the alternative PCC has to consider only single 
> /56.

The problem with carving out a /64 out of the assigned /56 to provision 
each end-user is that the end-user must now make an exception for that /64 
as being outside of their network with regard to policy even though it's 
in their assigned address range.  Ie. this can unnecessarilly complicate 
things for the end-user in building ACLs for example.

Personally I'd prefer giving the end-user maximum flexibility in how they 
actually use their assigned /56 (or /48) rather than deny them the 
use of one /64.

Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp:  [e-mail]