Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:36:02 +0200
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 25 jul 2006, at 12.16, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Kurtis,
<snip>
There are two problems here. 1) I am pretty convinced that the IETF
shouldn't be running address-policy for the ISPs. Especially since
there are also complexity here that I am not sure we understand (i.e
RIR -> LIR charging schemes).
I agree with that. RFC3177 seems to be a IESG/IAB recommendation /
Informational RFC. If ISPs / RIRs etc. don't follow the recommendation,
then it's probably useful for the IETF to point out the technical pros
and cons of their decision.
I think we have some responsibility beyond just pointing out pros
and cons. The reason I think that the /48 recommendation is OBE is
not that I think it's a mistake - but it's clear that (some) operators
and (some) registries are being very cautious about handing out IPv6
space and will feel more comfortable giving out /56. The vital thing
is to ensure that it isn't a /64.
Brian
2) I am not advocating 5 subnets, nor
am I in favour of 2^16. I am sure there is a middle ground and that
we shouldn't carve it in stone.
My thoughs are to aim for simplicity and operational convenience.
Giving everybody a /48 would make running IPv6 simple and operationally
convenient for nearly every end-site to be or currently in existance.
Along those lines, I'm curious what you (and other people who seem to
be against /48s for end sites) think of the "excessive" 46 bits of
address space that ethernet uses, when the reality is that no more
than
12 bits of address space would probably have been plenty for the
even the biggest LAN segments (I've seen one sadly) ? Bare in mind
that
that addressing size decision was made around 1980, when even LAN
segments with 4000 devices would have been inconceivable, so even 12
bit addressing at the time would have seemed beyond "excessive".
I could probably say a lot about the MAC addresses but this is the
wrong SDO.
Fair enough. I was really only trying to prompt thinking about what
simplicity and operational advantages have been gained from using
"excess" address space in ethernet, when that amount of address space
certainly wasn't necessary around 1980, and, based on the address
management tasks people are performing with IPv4 successfully enough
today, wouldn't be necessary now either. Operational and functional
convenience was prioritised over necessity when the ethernet address
size decision was made, and has paid many dividends.
Regards,
Mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
