[ppml] IPv6 & /48 [was 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments]

[Lea Roberts]

William -

A large number of folks worked very hard to develop a "coordinated" IPv6
policy among all the RIRs, which included the /48 recommendation from the
IETF.  All of these carried the caveat that they would be revisited after
"operational experience" was gained.  There is now beginning to be
operational experience that shows very large allocations being justified
under the current criteria, which suggests revisting the policy parameters
and noting that perhaps the assignment pendulum swung a little too far
toward the "there should be no limits" end.  Just because there is a
safety valve doesn't argue for reaching that point any sooner that prudent
but non-restrictive allocation policy would allow.		/Lea

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> As far as why /48 for end-networks that was decision done not only by IETF
> but also discussed at all RIRs - I remember we had voted for that on at
> least two ARIN meetings in around 2000-2002 (I think Las Vegas was when it
> was finalized) and there was a consensus about it. It can be changed, but
> it'd have to be the same kind of process with everyone getting involved
> and agreeing on the change and it would cause yet another push of ip6
> deployment by several years. Plus I really don't see why we should be
> worrying about it when just for case like that it was decided that only
> 1/4 of ipv6 space will actually be open for use and rest 3/4 are reserved
> in case we ever actually exhaust the first 1/4 and then if we do we can
> surely work out a lot more serious policies as to how not to exhaust
> remaining 3/4 quickly...