Observing this thread, this seems to be the minority opinion. And I suppose
it’s normal that people would generalized based on their personal experiences.
My experience is one of being allocated address blocks per platform, and having
a very strong incentive to make these work over the long haul. As such,
arbitrary constraints, such as /64, don’t seem like a flexible design at all.
Plus, for those who opine that “everyone” should be allocated a /48, I’d
suggest two problems with that notion. First, it does not reflect today’s
reality. And secondly, it seems quite limiting. No better than MAC addresses,
which by now we know are hardly “guaranteed” to be globally unique.
IoT changes all of our preconceived notions about what is “ample.”
From: ipv6 [mailto:ipv6-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo
Colitti
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:46
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; 6man-chairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6
Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Mark Smith
<markzzzsmith(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:markzzzsmith(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
wrote:
Let's leave behind unnecessary practices that have been used to extend IPv4's
life, and that make things unnecessarily complicated and more costly to operate
and troubleshoot.
What he said.