IPv6 Address Assignment to End-Sites
draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-02
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2019-04-12 (latest revision 2018-10-09) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc6177-bis-02.txt
Abstract
The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) policies have different views regarding the recommendation of the prefix to be assigned to end- sites. However, all them allow up to a /48 without further justification and clearly state that the exact choice of how much address space should be assigned to end-sites is a decision of each operator. This document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of end-site assignments, and reiterates that assignment policy and guidelines belong to the RIR community. This revision is being made to emphasize that IPv6 protocol evolution requires an ever-increasing availability of subnets at the end-site, so policy should reflect that assignment of a single subnet is never recommended. This document obsoletes RFC6177 (IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites).
Authors
Jordi Palet
(jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Rosalea Roberts
(lea.roberts@stanford.edu)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)