"6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
RIRs will apply a minimum size for IPv6 allocations, to facilitate prefix-based filtering.
The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
So the problem is still there. (Same text is also still present at IANA and the other RIRs.)
the "problem" is that folks seem to have a different take on the word FACILITATE
in the above section. facilitate != mandate.... e.g. one could expect that delegations
made from the RIRs -when this policy was/is in force- to be on /32 alignments.
for delegations made under different regimes, the delegation sizes may be different...
like the /35s that were popular from the RIR community before the /32 agreement was
reached. Or the /48s that predated the /35s...
it is important to remember that neither the IETF nor the RIR can manage/conserve the entries in anyones routing/forwarding tables.
That's inconsistent with the published policy.
No. See above.
When there is an inconsistency, you can't fix it by adding more data. You need to remove/change something. The fact that the information necessary to do route filtering is present in 5 locations and policies are created in 4 places doesn't help.
The IETF (imho) should confine itself to protocol work, The RIRs should confine themselves to being wise stewards of the addressing
resources, and the ISPs need to worry about the operational coordination of routing... such is not the perview of either the IETF, the IANA task,
or the RIRs. ....
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
