[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

[Randy Bush]

>>> that have been specified assuming the /64 boundary, so trying to move that
>>> would have had a high pain ratio.
>> a - it is specifically NOT specified in architecture.  architecture
>>     specifically says (or used to say) that it should not be a hard
>>     boundary in implementations.
>> b - many of us use p2p links of /126 today
> I readily acknowledge it's possible if one is willing to do
> without those mechanisms which have enumerated elsewhere

i am specifically concerned that the /64 magic not be sprinkled
places where it is not clearly required.

> I stand by my assertion that obtaining more address space should
> never be difficult or expensive, so that getting an additional or
> expanded assignment would be the normal way for dealing with the
> need for more subnets.

orthogonal issue

> is 2005-8 at least moving in the correct direction for IPv6 address
> assignment policy or do you think the current RFC3177-based assignment
> policies should continue?

imiho, yes.  but i find the /48, /56, /64 language to be too
restrictive.  they could be couched in 'recommend' as most other
things in the proposal are.

randy