> But the /48 boundary is not. We had a long discussion about > that in the IPv6 WG, and our specs were carefully cleansed to > make sure there were no real dependencies on such a boundary. > Think Randy Bush saying "your reinventing IPv4 classful > addressing" about a thousand times. :-) It is a very bad thing when the IETF bows to demands from the ISP industry to hobble the network architecture for other businesses and consumers. Thankfully, the IETF did not do that and the one-size-fits-all architecture of a /48 for all, remains intact. The fact that some RIRs allow ISPs to assign a different one-size-fits-all to consumer sites, really doesn't change this fundamental architecture. > Indeed, even though the official IETF party line is that > links have to have 64 bits of subnet addressing assigned to > them, a number of operators screamed loudly that for internal > point-to-point links, that was horribly wasteful and they > weren't going to stand for it. So, products do indeed support > prefixes of arbitrary length (e.g., /126s and the like), and > some operators choose to use them. This is one of those > situations where the IETF specs seem to say one thing, but > the reality is different. And we pretend not to notice too much. It is good that the IETF responded to demands from the ISP industry for features which are needed in that industry. It is not good if the IETF lets the ISP industry make architectural decisions for other businesses. > And there are folk that participate in both the IETF and the RIR communities. That's fine as long as they aren't trying to get the RIRs to override IETF architectural decisions. The RIRs are not a proper forum for that kind of thing because the needed technical review is simply not possible in the RIRs. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf