--On Friday, 24 August, 2007 17:34 -0400 Thomas Narten
<narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some background and history.
>
> The IETF gave it's view on where the boundary for IPv6 blocks
> to end sites should be (i.e., the /48 recommendation) in RFC
> 3177 back in the 2000-2001 time frame.
>
> At that time, there were plenty of folk in the IETF that
> thought the IETF could/should set address policy,
> notwithstanding fact that the RIRs were doing that for IPv4.
>
> RFC 3177 was a way for the IETF to make a recommendation to
> the RIRs, without stepping on RIR toes (too much). Note that
> it is only a recommendation, and the RFC is informational.
>
> 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. (And you might want to have a look at
>...
Thomas,
Let me suggest a slightly different perspective on this.
First, the decision as to how large to make the IPv6 address
space is, and was, an architectural decision. We could have
chosen a longer length, we could have chosen a shorter one, we
could even have made it variable length (with or without a
fixed-length or maximum-length network part). As others have
pointed out, we could have taken explicit measures to separate
IP-level addressing from routing as a fundamental part of that
architecture. All of those options were considered (although
some a lot more carefully than others).
Whether it is obsolete or not, and, if it is, whether because of
hardware or security considerations, the belief that local
networks needed to have 64 bits available for MAC address
mapping were also part of that picture. Again, certainly an
architectural decision rather than "pure policy".
Whether it was explicit or not, assumptions about the effective
size of that address space -- how many sites or "networks" it
could serve -- were also part of those architectural decisions.
I remember a whole series of discussions about whether N bits
(for various values of N) were enough under various scenarios.
We might not have gotten those decisions right, but they were
IETF decisions and decisions made as part of determining what
IPv6 looked like.
Second, the notion that RIRs set addressing policy is one that
has not been in place forever. Indeed, it has evolved very
slowly and mostly by assertion by the RIRs that they have that
authority --assertions that, in other contexts, might look a lot
like either filling a vacuum or turf grabs depending on one's
perspective. While they have always (since there have been
RIRs) had broad discretion within their own regions, and it has
always been recognized some coordination discourages
forum-shopping and other bad behavior, global address policy was
historically set by IANA in conjunction with the IAB, not by the
RIRs (although I assume their advice was certainly welcomed).
Without taking any position on whether the ARIN decision is a
reasonable one, I believe that the IETF has had, and continues
to have, a role in the general design of addressing
architectures and hence in allocation strategies. I also
believe that the RIRs have some obligation to consult the IETF
before making a major policy change and to pay careful attention
to anything rational the IETF has to say. I also believe that
things are seriously out of joint if we need to worry about
whose toes are being stepped on before opinions are expressed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf