Hi Ole, Gert, David and Roger, >> >> In practice, this means that the RFC suggests that a customer can get an >> IPv6 assignment of any size, while the RIPE policy says the minimum should >> be a /64. >> I’m interested to know what the community thinks about this and if alignment >> between this RFC and the RIPE policy is needed. > > That is an interpretation of RFC7608 that I hope is not common. > RFC7608 is written for the purpose of ensuring that forwarding engines (and > routing protocols) are built so that they can handle any prefix length. > Apparently some implementations treated IPv6 as classful, and only supported > forwarding of prefix lengths from 0-64 and 128. RFC7608 has absolutely > nothing to do with end-site address assignment. The IETF consensus on that is > in RFC6177. > > Best regards, > Ole
Thanks for your clarifications. The reason why I brought this up on the list, is that this RFC caused some discussion internally and externally and I wanted to verify that we’re all still on the same page. I agree that routing and end-site address assignment are two different things and I’m happy to see we are in agreement. Regards, Nathalie
