Of course we should talk, the next opportunity is the Pittsburgh IETF.
However, let's be careful about deducing general policy from what today's
ISPs believe, based on IPv4 experience. Things are truly different
in IPv6.
Brian
Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
>
> 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
