> > 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. Just to clarify, RFC 3177 discusses characteristics of IPv6 such as NLAs and TLAs that have been deprecated. When a reader realizes that some of the topic matter of this RFC is obsolete/deprecated, they are no longer able to trust anything in the document. Thomas is saying that RFC 3177 needs to be updated because of the deprecated bits. And if this document is to be revisited then it could include other material to become "IPv6 Addressing Guidelines for RIRs and ISPs". > Frankly I think that statement is out of order. The RIRs > need to be taking it to IETF. They would if it was clear that their activities were contrary to a published RFC. The IETF must take the first step here and clarify things. > 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. Agreed. But the working relationship between the RIRs and the IETF is somewhat in tatters at present. An update of RFC 3177 would be a fine first step to repair that relationship. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf