Stray thought - would it help alleviate this situation if the RIRs published the allocation policies recommending the /56 as the general rule?
I would much rather support that movement (even though it would be a more disparate effort, 5 RIRs to work with/through) than breaking the 64b boundary as some here seem to desire (a desire codified in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dickson-v6man-new-autoconf-00, for those interested). For example, for those of us in the ARIN region: "Simply" modify 6.5.4.1 from the NRPM (http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html) ... : * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed * /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets over the next 5 years. * /48 for larger sites To place a preference on the /56s, or to de-pref the /64s ... or something? /TJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
