Re: 3177-bis

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-03-18 10:00, Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> As Brian says, please be clear. The goal of this draft is to make
> clear that /48 is not a technical/architecural requirement and that the
> concerns/motivations that led to the original recommendation of /48
> can be met with end site assignments other than "/48 for everyone". If
> you disagree with this, please elaborate.

Another Brian chimes in:

I think that when we wrote 3177, we had a substantial hope that the
number of bits available for location in an IPv6 address, i.e. 64,
was enough that we could revert in some sense to classful addressing
(i.e., everybody gets a stretch Class A, in effect). There were
undoubtedly some convenient technical implications of this, which
were listed in 3177. Since then, I think the RIRs have come up
with ample technical and armchair-economics arguments why this
unreasonably constrains allocation policy (and hence aggregation
models and ultimately BGP table size).

It's a bit of a surprise that the arguments that destroyed classful
IPv4 addressing still apply in a /64 space, but since that seems to
be the case, I support the draft.

    Brian C