IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites
draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual in gen area)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dr. Thomas Narten , Geoff Huston , Rosalea Roberts | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2010-07-12) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
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 revisits and updates 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 a policy issue under the purview of the RIRs, subject to 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. This document updates and replaces RFC 3177.
Authors
Dr. Thomas Narten
Geoff Huston
Rosalea Roberts
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)