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

[Lea Roberts]

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

OK - acknowledged.

> > 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.

so if the word "recommendations" replaced "guidelines", would it work
better for you?  i.e.:

The following recommendations may be useful (but they are only
recommendations):

- /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed

- /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets over
the next 5 years.

- /48 for larger sites

how do others feel?  does anyone out there prefer "guidelines"??  :-)

			thanks for your input!		/Lea