Keith,
It seems likely that cable mso's similar will dole out /64's to
customers one at a time, ...
The issue is that IPv6 is architected to give sufficient addresses to
end users, and by screwing with this ARIN is harming both
deployability
of IPv6, manaegability of IPv6, and usability of IPv6 by applications.
First, there was never an architectural goal to give end users
'sufficient' addresses
for arbitrary values of 'sufficient'. Second, one might reasonably
expect 2^64
addresses to be sufficient. It allows anyone to embed 2^32 entire
IPv4-sized Internets
in their own house. If you have a problem with IPv6's routing
architecture not allowing
subnetting within the least significant 64 bits, well, that's water
that's VERY much
under the bridge.
Third, I think you have your perpetrator's confused. ARIN is not
limiting end users
to /64's, that is the MSOs call. They are retailing service and as
you might reasonably
expect, their entry level product is just that: entry level. As I
mentioned before, if you
want more, fork over more sheckles. Most MSOs would VERY much like to
sell you a service with a fraction of an IPv4 address today, but they
really haven't
figured out how they could do so technically. For v6, they will
always sell a service
with a minimal amount of address, regardless of ARIN policies. If
they could figure
out how to make that a /128, they would.
This is just good business sense on their part: buy low, sell high.
no, it's because they're screwing with protocol design decisions that
have already been made, and which they aren't by any stretch of the
imagination qualified to revisit.
Exactly what decision are you claiming they violate? Please quote
the RFC.
I don't know which one you're on about.
Thanks,
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf