IETF is now backtracking on /48 IPv6 address allocation by letting anyone do what the hell they like ( to some extent, this got us into a lot of the problems we have today). The following RFC Draft is dated 3rd Jan 2011.
< blockquote>draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-01: ” RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites should be assigned /48 blocks in most cases. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) adopted that recommendation in 2002, but began reconsidering the policy in 2005. This document obsoletes the RFC 3177 recommendations on the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites. The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for the operational community. The IETF’s role in this case is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original 3177 recommendations. Moreover, the document clarifies that a one-size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single default.
The justification for the change is in the summary:
The IETF recommends that any policy on IPv6 address assignment policy to end sites take into consideration: – it should be easy for an end site to obtain address space to number multiple subnets (i.e., a block larger than a single /64) and to support reasonable growth projections over long time periods (e.g., a decade or more). – the default assignment size should take into consideration the likelihood that an end site will have need for multiple subnets in the future and avoid the IPv4 practice of having frequent and continual justification for obtaining small amounts of additional space – Although a /64 can (in theory) address an almost unlimited number of devices, sites should be given sufficient address space to be able to lay out subnets as appropriate, and not be forced to use address conservation techniques such as using bridging. Whether or not bridging is an appropriate choice is an end site matter. – assigning a longer prefix to an end site, compared with the existing prefixes the end site already has assigned to it, is likely to increase operational costs and complexity for the end site, with insufficient benefit to anyone. – the operational considerations of managing and delegating the reverse DNS tree under ip6.arpa on nibble vs. non-nibble boundaries should be given adequate consideration
The EtherealMind View
* end user people must be whining that /64 isn’t enough.
* people who issue addresses are whining that /48 is too much.
* since there is so many IPv6 addresses, conservation is hardly a problem.
* let them eat cake.
Other Posts in A Series On The Same Topic
- Why Allocating a /64 is Not Wasteful and Necessary (23rd January 2011)
- IPv6 - /48 allocation in /64 chunks - that's a lot of addresses (21st January 2011)
- IPocalypse: What's next for the 'End of the Internet' ? (20th January 2011)
- The IPocalyse is Nigh - Forced Allocation of IPv4 to RIRs next week ? (19th January 2011)
- IETF IPv6 address allocation policy being updated. (12th January 2011)
- Scheduling the IPocalypse (25th November 2010)