Moin,
The point of pain from the past was actually the phrasing in 2.6
I don't see the problematic phrasing in the old version of 2.6. Can you point it out please?
Ah, my mistake; Actually it was in 5.4.2 of the old text: "Assignments larger than a /48 (shorter prefix) or additional assignments exceeding a total of a /48 must be based on address usage or because different routing requirements exist for additional assignments." Which was interpreted to parse to: Assignments # That are either [larger than a /48 (shorter prefix)] # Implicit Exclusive OR or [additional assignments exceeding a total of a /48] # If address usage requires larger network [must be based on address usage] # Inclusive OR or ( # Different routing requirements exist [because different routing requirements exist] # Implicit conditional; i.e., AND it is about # _additional_ assignments, not a shorter # prefix. [for additional assignments.] ) This means that the _only_ way to justify anything larger than a /48 for a single end-site (even considering 'large', i.e., L2 connected ones) can only be justified via address usage/addressing needs. Assuming a /64 per device, this would mean at least (2**16) + 1 devices (i had a corresponding ticket; See the AP-WG ML archives.)
The end-user will, in general, only hold one PI assignment covering their needs at a time.
Perhaps the policy could be reworded to make this clearer.
Yeah, we can see what can be changed textually; Do you have any suggestions? With best regards, Tobias