Mark Smith wrote: > Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote: > >> I thought this would be interesting reading for the working group. >> > > I think the best thing to do is ignore it. If it gets any traction in > ARIN, then we might have to do something. > > (I'm embarrassed to be listed in the acknowledgements section of the > related draft, because it can imply I agree with it - and my position is > the complete opposite - I'm even fairly strongly anti-/56.) And the even funnier portion of that draft is that he (Brian Dickson) is basically asking the IETF (first, but there it was already heavily commented on in a negative way), now the RIRs to change the policies they have in place. He basically wants to change the lower /64 and enable a different EUI-64 concept (thus not remove it, which would really be silly). The main reason he has for this is that ISP's are now getting /32's and when they *misplan* their address space they would go back to the RIR and get more address space, which, according to him, would lead to the point that multiple de-aggregated prefixes would leak into the routing tables. Now the fun part of this, these 5 de-aggregated blocks which where just allocated by ARIN to a certain company called Affilias, the same company that he is working for, is using his email address from and which name is also on the draft: 2001:500:16::/47 2001:500:18::/45 2001:500:20::/45 2001:500:28::/46 2001:500:2c::/48 So one has to wonder, if they already got their own de-aggregated prefixes, why do they want to block others from doing so. If it would happen in the first place that is, remember that a /32 actually comes out of a reserved block of afaik a /29, as such those blocks can grow without any problems and de-aggregation. Any ISP who needs more than that definitely has grown a lot or have really misplanned how much space they will need. Most ISPs will do fine with a /64 though. As for the draft/proposal itself: why try to move the bits on the right side (the /64 portion) when ISPs can already shove the bits on the left side by simply justifying more address space? A proposal for changing the /48 boundary for *home users* to /56 though might at a certain point be a good idea. Companies should be getting a /48 IMHO. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature