ARIN IPv6 Policy

Scott,

As an IAB member, I can report that there has been NO "intense discussion",
or discussion of any sort, in the IAB about the "/48" recommendation since
that draft was submitted.  I also haven't heard of any such discussion in
the IESG, but I suppose it's possible.  My sense is that everyone in the
IAB & IESG who cares is content with the recommendation, and just
waiting to see if ARIN is going to go along with it.

There *is* active discussion in the IPv6 Directorate about the nature
of the high-order (i.e., left-hand side) structure of the IPv6 address
(e.g., removing the fixed field width from the TLA field as being
inappropriate for an "architecture" spec, given that we don't want
routers to hard code knowledge of such boundaries).  But in the
Directorate as well, there is no controversy about the /48 recommendation
for allocations to subscribers.

My perception is that the /48 recommendation *is* a "done deal" in the
IETF, but perhaps I'm not hearing the "rumbles" you are.  Can you be
more specific about what you have heard and/or from whom you have heard
otherwise?

Steve


At 10:33 AM -0500 3/12/01, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
>At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> >
> >> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
> >> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
> >> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
> >> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
> >
> >> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> >>	<http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
> >>	-recommendations-00.txt>. 
> >> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> >> operational experience."
> >
> >
> >Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
>
>
>
>Speaking only for myself...
>
>
>
>I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
>topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
>that many of us might have assumed.
>
>With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
>deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.
>
>Cheers,
>- Scott