>> 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. perhaps, but one might also reasonably expect 2^0 networks to be insufficient. > 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. so are prefix allocations to users of less size than a /48. but if ARIN can't follow the specifications that everyone else uses, this should call their competence into serious question, and maybe IANA should find someone else to dole out IPv6 prefixes for that part of the world. > 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. ARIN does not have a license to print money at the expense of the Internet architecture. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf