Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net> writes:

> This document should clearly state that there is no -technical- reason for
> anything longer than a /48, and there are clear technical reasons for
> nothing longer than a /60. There may be -business- reasons for nibble values
> in between, but those should not be confused with technical
> requirements.

I might be close to agreeing with this, I think, but probably not for
the reasons you mention.

I think it's actually somewhat unhelpful to say "technical reasons",
because now we get into arguing what "technical" means. I believe that
most of the issues surrounding the end site allocation size are
operational, and not really technical. They have to do with ease of
renumbering (when changing providers -- i.e., don't move to fewer
subnets). Or the ease of having the site be restricted to using only N
subnets. 

So, can you restate what the arguments are against longer than a 60?

Thomas