> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf