...another flash-back to the previous millennium below. On 2016-05-19 10:18, Shane Kerr wrote: > Jen and all, > > Gather 'round kids, Grandpa has a story!
So this from a Grand-Grand-Pa :-) > At 2016-05-18 20:56:13 +0200 > Jen Linkova <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:45 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [...] > I was at a meeting way back in the 20th century - either my first or > second time at an IETF, IIRC. And I remember a late-night meeting amongst the RIR Folks (in Bangkok, iirc), when we tried to come up with a distribution policy which would be a compromise between the different points of view in the 5 regions. It turned out that we were successful in the end. One of the arguments in favour of a uniform prefix length (/48 per 'site') was the support for easy renumbering support in DNS. Anyone remembers the A6 RR type and the level of abstraction/indirection it would have offered? Alas, this beast is extinct by now. RIP... > There was a discussion amongst RIR-types > about the default prefix size. Someone proposed the /48 and said that > we need to have the same size for every assignment, so that it is easy > for customers to move between providers, and to avoid establishing the > difference between 'residential customer' and other customers that you > are describing. Even at the time I thought it was a bit cheeky to be > establishing policy like this, but the idea was not criticized at the > meeting. (I also suggested that we don't really need to use 8-bit > boundaries even, but was told via some hand-waving arguments about > ASICs that this was absolutely necessary.) I, too, think that this was mostly hand-waving. The only boundary I do consider essential is alignment with the 4bit hex digits of the external representation, in order to have aligned reverse DNS delegation points. FWIW, Wilfried > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
