But the /48 boundary is not. We had a long discussion about
that in the IPv6 WG, and our specs were carefully cleansed to
make sure there were no real dependencies on such a boundary.
Think Randy Bush saying "your reinventing IPv4 classful
addressing" about a thousand times. :-)
It is a very bad thing when the IETF bows to demands from the ISP
industry to hobble the network architecture for other businesses and
consumers. Thankfully, the IETF did not do that and the
one-size-fits-all architecture of a /48 for all, remains intact. The
fact that some RIRs allow ISPs to assign a different one-size-fits-all
to consumer sites, really doesn't change this fundamental architecture.
Indeed, even though the official IETF party line is that
links have to have 64 bits of subnet addressing assigned to
them, a number of operators screamed loudly that for internal
point-to-point links, that was horribly wasteful and they
weren't going to stand for it. So, products do indeed support
prefixes of arbitrary length (e.g., /126s and the like), and
some operators choose to use them. This is one of those
situations where the IETF specs seem to say one thing, but
the reality is different. And we pretend not to notice too much.
It is good that the IETF responded to demands from the ISP industry for
features which are needed in that industry. It is not good if the IETF
lets the ISP industry make architectural decisions for other businesses.
And there are folk that participate in both the IETF and the RIR
That's fine as long as they aren't trying to get the RIRs to override
IETF architectural decisions. The RIRs are not a proper forum for that
kind of thing because the needed technical review is simply not possible
in the RIRs.
Ietf mailing list