Re: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
> Can you please be specific about what points you think need to be
> carried over into 3177bis?
It is not clear to me why the arguments for a fixed boundary have been 
removed.  I accept that there is no IETF architectural issue whether 
the size is /48, /56 or whatever, but there would still be benefits 
for at least having a uniform guideline within a RIR.  Clearly some of 
those tradeoffs (e.g., no need to evaluate the need by the customer) 
are still valid.  Are you arguing that as the specific prefix length 
(within constraints) is not an IETF issue, we should also be quiet 
about the tradeoffs, in particular the reasons why the previous 
recommendation was the way it was?
Other than that, the current document mentions a number of times 
"subject to IPv6 architectural and operational considerations".  This 
is a new formulation, and it is not obvious to me what the 
architectural (or operational) considerations are.  There is some 
text regarding IPv6 standards but it is not clear whether these are 
the architectural considerations referred to here, and whether the 
current list of standards is exclusive.
Does the document mean (without saying it explicitly)  that assigning 
/128's to the users is NOT in the purview of the RIRs because the IETF 
IPv6 architecture defines the subnet boundary at /64?  Does it imply 
something else in addition/instead?
> Note that both references are in the specific "recommendation" part
> Yet, making a specific recommendation is exactly what this document is
> not doing. Can you say something about what you think would be
> appropriate to say about /128?
Per above.  For example, one could explicitly state what the IETF 
architectural considerations mean in this context.  E.g., this 
document does not give a warrant to assign addresses beyond /64, like 
as /128s.
--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings