On 2007-10-31 05:39, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Mark Smith" <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:31:10 +0100 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.It doesn't appear to have much support at the present time. OTOH, those of us active in the ARIN community would appreciate pointers to RFCs that say this idea is or isn't valid so that we have as much guidance from the IETF as possible.
I don't think there is anything that black and white. I think the best discussion of the issues is in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt which is unfortunately expired. Maybe its authors would care to update it? IMNSHO Brian Dickson's case doesn't hold water. If ISPs are using careless allocation techniques and thereby wasting space, I don't think that should be fixed by depriving IPv6 users of their normal /48 or possibly /56 assignments for small sites. We didn't expand the address space to allow ISPs to become sloppy at the expense of users. We expanded it to relieve pressure on both ISPs and users. Let's not forget basics. /48 is 65536 times bigger than the raw IPv4 address space. Just how *bad* at allocation do we have to be to run out of /48s??? Brian