Re: [v6ops] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07.txt

[DY Kim <[e-mail]>]

Taken. 

A follow-on question:

Assume the site under my management purview is assigned a /48 prefix from an upstream provider. Can I apply this BCP to the devices in my site?

I think that’s at least technically possible. And I don’t see a text in the doc which prevents me from doing that on my own autonomous decision and responsibility. Right?

---
DY






> On 4 Aug 2017, at 11:39, Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 4 August 2017 at 11:53, DY Kim <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> In the 2nd para of Sec. 4, it reads:
>> 
>> “… a Unique IPv6 prefix (currently a /64 prefix)…”
>> 
>> Assuming that there’d be at some place upwards where a /48 prefix would be
>> present, which prefix length is up to a common practice for ISPs in
>> assigning a prefix to a site, does the above spec means:
>> 
>> o the maximum number of devices that the proposed scenario can accommodate
>> is 64K (2**16; 64 - 48 = 16)?
>> 
> 
> (Not speaking on the authors behalf)
> 
> If you only received a /48 for your site, then yes, that would be the
> upper limit on how many devices this method supported.
> 
> However, the scenario being described is one of a service provider,
> and they will get at least a /32 from their RIR, meaning in theory the
> maximum number of hosts they can support is 4 billion (!). They could
> get larger than /32 if they needed to if it became too small.
> 
> In this scenario a "site" is really the individual host, rather than a
> boundary of a group of subnets at a site. /48 or /56 are common
> aggregation boundaries for a multi-subnet site, so they don't really
> apply here. The service provider could internally aggregate the /64s
> at any where they need to between e.g. /32 and /63 to suit their
> routing protocol scaling.
> 
> So in short, /48 is not constraining this solution because /48 doesn't apply.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark.