> I'd encourage folk to read the entire IPv6 policy to get a > more complete picture. > And, for those of you worried about end users being given a > /64 (or worse), from a registry perspective, it is 100% > acceptable to give every end site a /56. That is what the > above wording means, and that is what the RIRs expect LIRs to > do. That is *NOT* what the quoted wording means. You should read the entire IPv6 policy to get a more complete picture. In your quoted text, /56 is used as the base unit of measure because another area of policy suggests that it is OK to assign a /56 to a small site. The /56 was added at the request of IPS who have large numbers of consumer subscribers (cable ISPs) since they preaddress their infrastructure for every home the cable passes. Using a /48 would chew up /32s at an enormous rate compared to ISPs using telecom circuits. In the same section where the various sizes are discussed, it also states that it is acceptable to assign every end site a /48. Nowhere does it state that a /56 is acceptable for anything but the smallest sites (private homes). > The RIRs are not trying to "conserve" in the same sense as > for IPv4. The RIRs are also not trying to "not conserve". In fact the RIRs are merely responding to external requests for policy changes. After much discussion, some policy changes meet rough consensus after which they get a bit of wordsmithing (sometimes sloppily done) and enshrined in policy. The RIRs lurch from one direction to another like a brain damaged drunkard. A better quality of engagement from the IETF in the form of an RFC with "IPv6 Guidance for RIRs" would greatly improve the situation. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf