[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction
On 2007-10-31 05:39, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Mark Smith" <email@example.com>
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:31:10 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
which is unfortunately expired. Maybe its authors would care to
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???