On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:40:26PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
The reason why this "/48 assignment" stuff from the criteria needs to removed is that it doesn't make sense. The policy explicitely specifies that it's *fine* to assign /64s to certain categories of end users (5.4.1), but 5.1.1 says "but if you do that, you will not get address space to do it". Who is bitten by this is the 3GPP people, because they are planning only /64s - and if we have a policy that says "the only real driver for IPv6 isn't going to get addresses", that policy is dumb.
<snip>
c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and customers to which it will make assignments by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.
I'd opt for:
c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations and customers to which it will make assignments _according to the rules specified in section 5.4.1_, and will advertise that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation.
just to make it clear that this change doesn't mean "/60s are fine now".
Exactly. 5.4.1 and RFC3177 are important for the sake of maintaining a coherent assignment policy, but the size of the assignments an LIR/ISP is planning on making (which we very much hope will be picked from the /48 /64 or /128 bucket as per that policy) should not impact their ability to obtain an allocation in the first place... Andy -- Andy Furnell <andy@linx.net> Mob: +44 (0) 7909 680019 London Internet Exchange http://www.linx.net