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

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

Kurt,

> > 3.  Other RFC 3177 considerations
> >
> >    RFC3177 suggested that some multihoming approaches (e.g., GSE)  
> > might
> >    benefit from having a fixed /48 boundary. This no longer appears to
> >    be a consideration. There is no such requirement coming out of the
> >    IETF multi6 or shim6 efforts.

> I think we can take the last sentence out. Mostly as we are seeing  
> several parallel solutions being pursued and deployed, such as shim6,  
> PI space and more specific PAs.

So here is the dilemma. I put in this sentence because 3177 argues
that /48 might be useful in the  context of multihoming/GSE. A while
back, I asked multi6 whether this was the case and got a "no" back in
response. Pekka (in another thread) complains that this document
doesn't address all the points that 3177 did. So, if I take the above
out, then what can I (usefully) say about the above point?

> I don't believe this should go into the document,

Why not? Is it incorrect, or just unnecessary?

> but I will also  
> offer the observation that in some of the RIR regions the end-site  
> allocation size have impacts on the LIRs relationship to the RIR -  
> and this 'rule' has the potential for creating artificial complexity  
> in that area.

what do you mean by "this rule"? That there is no longer a fixed /48
can be used? If so, I agree, but the RIRs are already heading in that
direction and I view it ias inevitable because we will eventually see
end sites that need more than a /48, in which case we have to figure
out how to count/measure/justify them.

Thomas