Brian,
At 10:29 -0500 7/7/00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...snip...
> > A /64 for dialup
>> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not
>>going to be
>> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large
>>lan behind it.
>
>Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about.
It is not the RIRs trying to force variable length prefixes. At the
RIPE meeting in Budapest and the ARIN meeting in Calgary we reported
what the outcome of conversations with IETF people was (the /48, /56,
/64 options for allocation).
This seemed to be a reasonable way of doing it for the IPv6/ngtrans
IETF people and to the RIR people present in Adelaide.
At both the ARIN and RIPE meetings, ISPs (the people who will use the
address space, after all) were the ones that suggested variable
length prefixes for allocation and the RIRs must go by the community
consensus (BTW, at the RIPE meeting no consensus was reached, with
both the variable length and the 3 fixed lengths having supporters).
A second issue is to think about a way of getting the IETF IPv6
people and the 3 RIR communities to talk to each other at the same,
otherwise we are entering a loop, with at least 4 separate
discussions and each dependant on the other 3.
Joao
> Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
