4 ms·
I'm dealing with this now as well..=( Do you happen to have a reference from the RFC, about it being against spec to hand out just a /64?
by victorhooi 4y ago
I'm dealing with this now as well..=(
Do you happen to have a reference from the RFC, about it being against spec to hand out just a /64?
- error503 4y agoOriginally (2002) a /48 per site was recommended in RFC3177. More recently (2011) RFC6177 took a more pragmatic / softened approach, but it does say: - 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). I don't really understand why ISPs choose to be so stingy with allocations. An extra 8 bits of address space to allocate /56 instead of /64 costs them effectively nothing and has considerable operational benefits, simplifies CPE configuration etc. Just minds still living in IPv4 land I guess.
- keiyakins 4y agoI suspect it's to make business plans artificially more appealing. After all, why offer a better service when instead you can just make your cheaper one worse?
- Dagger2 4y agoIt's not an RFC, but RIPE690 is pretty clear on the matter: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690#4-2-3--prefixes--longer-than--56 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690#4-2-3--prefi...