> > - it is too hard for them to explicitly delegate prefixes > > Note that this is not a binary decision, i.e., the ISP might decide > that "OK, it's not too hard for us to delegate the prefixes, but if we > do that, we want some extra payment from the user for the trouble".
So then you end up with a single IPv6 address, right? > In that kind of environment, ensuring that the users have tools to > cope with a /64 prefix as well would seem to be really important. But the /64 isn't delegated to the subscriber - it is merely assigned to the link between ISP and the subscriber. I think RFC 3177 is quite clear on its recommendation. Why can't we simplify the message and avoid developping additional protocols (which are as likely to slow down IPv6 deployment as speeding it up) by saying that ISPs which don't delegate at least a /64 (using a protocol/mechanism which delegates it to the *subscriber* and not just assigning it to the link from the ISP and the subscriber) doesn't follow the implications of the recommendation in 3177? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
