Looks to me like people are trying to use technology to effect their political
I don't think that is a good idea, particularly since the process does not
allow the goals to be stated or debated directly. So even if we agree on the
end goals we are unlikely to end up with a mechanism that achieves them.
We went through all that with the crypto-wars. We ended up with a set of
cryptography protocols that almost nobody uses.
I see no political reason to insist on a /48 as the minimum allocation. A /96
gives me more addresses than the old IPv4 space had.
If we attempt to insist on a /x as the minimum allocation by introducing
technical limitations that make it impossible to use less than a /x all we do
is to make an allocation that could have been sufficient insufficient.
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:11 AM
Cc: michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com; John C Klensin; Hallam-Baker,
Phillip; ppml(_at_)arin(_dot_)net; address-policy-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
I don't see how such an architectural limitation can be enforced.
There is no way that the IETF can prevent an ISP issuing IPv6
customers a /128 if they choose.
Not directly, but there's the indirect route: a) IETF designs
IPv6 autoconfiguration. b) Linksys, D-Link, Netgear and
friends make boxes that support autoconfiguration. c) ISP
hand out /128s. d) Autoconfiguration doesn't work well. e)
Customers call ISP support. f) ISP loses $$$. g) ISP starts
issuing /48s instead.
I don't know the first thing about how IPv6 autoconfiguration
works. It worked very well in my previous office. Will it
work better when the router has a /48 at hand than a /64 or /128?
Ietf mailing list