ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] IPv6 Transition Policy (aka Soft Landing)


Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>    
>> Fixing slaac would be a good thing. Its absurd to allow something barely a decade old control the next several. If it is still a good idea, keep it, if it is a better idea to modify it, do it.
>>      
> "fixing SLAAC" is not within ARIN's scope - it is within the scope of the IETF
>   the Area Directors of the IETF Internet Area would be a good place to start - see
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
>
> scott
>
>    

Our collective insistence on this rigid categorization and demarcation 
is a bit ridiculous and produces ridiculous results more often than 
should be tolerated.

Policy needs to take design into account,  but design needs to do the 
same. Suppose policy was that utilization could only be justified at one 
/64 per household. You dont think design might come around and fix 
things up or adapt to policy and operator practices instead of rigidly 
the other way? Isnt that what happened with CIDR and with NAT? There has 
to be proper give and take, instead of this sort of deadlock.

I consider 240/4 to be another example of this tragic comedy.

I would like to see more official liason work between protocol and 
application designers, operators and policy bodies. The issue is broader 
than just this forum.

 From an informal outsider approach, the root of the 64 bit requirement 
seems to be in

rfc4291 2.5.1

    For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
    value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
    constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.

And this is already no longer true in almost any implementation.

This is way OT, so I would welcome further replies on this tangent off-list.
.

Joe