My experience is that those brand new to IPv6 (and who don't do some
reading up front) first think of offering a /128, but are quickly
convinced that /64 is the real minimum (which is why I said I had never
seen one "seriously" consider a /128). Then, after some time, they can
be convinced to move the line up to a /56, but it takes a second push -
one that's a little bit harder than the first. Going further, to a /48,
is often a tough sell for residential.
That's my experience at least, YMMV. I've never actually seen a
residential /128 service, though I have seen /64, /60, /56 and /48.
- Mark
Marc Blanchet wrote:
Mark Townsley a écrit :
I'm in contact with a lot of broadband providers deploying and thinking
about deploying IPv6, and have never seen one seriously consider /128.
/64, yes. /60 certainly. But never /128.
I'm too "in contact with a lot of broadband providers deploying and
thinking about deploying IPv6".
and some were first thinking to give a /128 as the "basic service", even
after some education on how "IPv6 works"... The possible arrival of
6ai/nat66 has already bring back this notion of /128, since it "just
maps" with their current v4 deployment/billing/OSS/...
note that I don't think /128+nat66-6ai is a good idea, but I would
certainly be careful claiming that it would not happen or it is not on
the design table.
Marc.
- Mark
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
... And ISP's could just say "we're only handing out one /128" because
we're expecting you to deploy NAPT66 - and there are plenty of vendors
willing to sell NAPT66 boxes...
- Wes
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
