You are both right and wrong... ;) We can never prevent a site from internally subnetting on any boundary it chooses, but we should be very clear about the consequences. At the same time we have to be consistent in our discussions with the rir's and providers about making sure sites have at least the options of /48 & /64, and that attempts to allocate less will result in ugly hacks that will be hard for them to maintain.
The strongest reason to make this a hard architectural boundary is to simplify the dev/test/interoperability of the code for the platform vendors. Sites that accept a /64 are stuck with a single subnet, unless they have sufficient technical knowledge to break the architecture; and have the appropriate support from their platform vendors. We are not in a position to prevent architectural abuse (even in our documentation; see RFC3022), but we can set expectations and interoperability requirements. If a site receives a /64 from their provider, the simplest approach would be to bridge the environment. For those that want a more complex topology, they will be better-off to lobby their provider for more space. Given track records, this is likely to be possible for a simple matter of more money. For those who don't want to pay for address space, but do want to pay for the cost of local implementations which subnet longer than /64, they are free to do so. One might point out this is a false economy, but people don't always listen. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michel Py > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:29 PM > To: Keith Moore > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: IPv6 Addr/Prefix clarification > > > >>> Keith Moore wrote: > >>> By allowing sites to subnet /64s we aren't forcing them to give up > >>> autoconfig, private addresses, etc... > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >> Would you educate me on how you do autoconfig, let's say, > on a /85 ? > > > Keith Moore wrote: > > you don't. a site that chooses to subnet below /64 is inherently > > choosing not to use stateless autoconfig. but this is a choice for > > that site to make, not for us to make on that site's behalf. > > This is direct contradiction with what you wrote before. > > > you still haven't given a single argument in favor of not allowing > > sites to subnet below /64. > > Yes, I have. And you haven't yet given a single good reason why a site > should subnet below /64, when a site should, indeed, use the SLA bits > (means SITE LEVEL AGGREGATOR) which have been designed for that very > purpose. > > Michel. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
