On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: My point is that it should be up to the person running the home net (or other end site) to decide what is better for their site and that we should not be making the choice for them.
So, to recap, RIR policies seem to allow ISPs to allocate /48s for clients. Someone made the claim that semantic prefix bits are not likely to pass muster with RIRs because they use too many bits. But ISPs seem to think that /48s are bigger than necessary; some don't use semantic bits, but still only give each customer a /56, which actually is a pretty useful allocation. So the point where we started this argument was over the question of whether ISPs could in fact get allocations from RIRs big enough to support the use of semantic prefixes. My claim was that they could, because they can just use some bits out of the /48 and still have enough to give every customer a /56, which is widely held to be adequate. You have been debating the question of whether it's possible for sites to survive on a mere /56, making the point that internal site address allocation is necessarily inefficient. You've made no convincing argument that this is true, and have failed to refute two different arguments I've made showing that it is not true. I personally have no position on semantic bits or /48 versus /56—I'm work for neither an RIR nor an ISP, and have no personal knowledge of the vicissitudes of life within such organizations. But I think that the arguments that are being made here ought to be grounded in reality. If I have failed to help achieve that, I apologize.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
