ARIN IPv6 Policy

At 12:34 03/12/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

< ... snip ...>

>> 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...

< ... snip ...>



Thanks for your earlier note, Brian.  I am hoping that it will be possible
for us to move this issue forward at the ARIN Public Policy meeting in April.




All:

I'd propose that, when we deal with the IPv6 allocation issue in the ARIN
Public Policy meeting, we focus on three distinct but interrelated issues,
all of which have come up in the various threads of this discussion:

1) the basic /48 recommendation;

2) the handling of the high order 48 bits;

3) assignment of /48 versus /64 (or /128) for dynamically assigned (e.g.
dial-up) users, in the absence of some demonstrated need for or interest in
subnetting.

Cheers,
- Scott