</chair> On Mar 18, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
It appears you missed the point, I was not arguing that we can't revise documents, I was pointing out that we are being asked to revise a documentbecause the RIRs are not willing to do what they need to.
personally, I don't think that's the case. You saw my earlier message in another thread that said I thought that there were business cases for the use of /64, /60, /56, /48, and /44. I don't see a strong argument that one size in fact fits all, or that there should be.
The matter of reducing ones prefix length is, imho, either a red herring or poor statement of a normal silver one. If I used to have a /13 and deployed two subnets, and now am renumbered to a /63, what in terms of my present requirements have I lost? I needed two subnets, I used two subnets, and I have two subnets. I do believe that we always want to leave room for growth (hence I would argue for a /60 in the case, breaking allocation boundaries on nibble boundaries for readability). But changing for a /13 to a /60 will not have hurt me, nor will it have crimped my style. I would argue that the issue is that a customer should be able to get an allocation that gives them enough subnets for their purpose.