The fact is, the /48 boundary is _NOT_ architectural, and saying it is
doesn't make it so. I challenge anyone to find a standards track
document that relies on /48 being part of the architecture.
Well, I challenge anyone to find an IETF standards track document that
clearly separates architectural layer design from other layers of
design. It's not like we make the distinction clear in our writing.
That doesn't mean that it isn't meaningful to talk about such things.
The fact is, the /48 boundary was chosen in light of a variety of
technical concerns, just like any other aspect of the protocol design.
There were several reasons why it was argued that it should be a
constant. The RIRs are not in a position to second-guess this design
decision and certainly not to delegate it to ISPs, who represent only a
narrow range of the myriad interests affected by this decision. If the
decision is to be revisited it needs to be done in IETF where the other
IPv6 protocol design decisions were made, and where a wider variety of
interests can be considered.
Folk should note that a policy proposal submitted to an RIR is not
unlike an individual submission "submitted" to the IETF. Best to
treat it as such. YMMV.
duly noted.
I find the fact that RFC 3177 has not been revised to reflect the
reality of today is a bit disapointing.
"reality of today" seems like an odd concept when trying to make or
revisit design decisions that will need to serve us for decades. I keep
seeing people making the same mistake of trying to design the future
Internet to meet only the needs of the current Internet.
Even in some of the messages
of this thread, I sense denial about the proper/actual role the IETF
plays in setting address policy.
Who is to say what is proper, or what is denial? Address policy, or at
least some aspects of it, is an inherent part of the design of IPv6.
The RIRs have no more business changing the /48 constant than they would
have, say, reassigning PA prefixes as PI prefixes.
I see some of the same people arguing
here that /48 should not be changed, despite having made the same
arguments on RIR lists and having lost... There is water under the
bridge here folk...
The reality is that "/48 for everyone" has been overcome by events. If
you don't like that, take it to the RIRs.
Frankly I think that statement is out of order. The RIRs need to be
taking it to IETF.
Now I'm all for prudent use of IPv6 space, and if the /48 needs to be
changed to /56 or some other value, then by all means let's have the
discussion here. But the discussion belongs here, not elsewhere. IPv6
is a lot of delicately crafted compromises, and it's not as if these
compromises were made independently of one another. Changes like this
can have unintended consequences, and these need to be understood and
examined. RIRs are not in a position to do this.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf