On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> So then your argument should be "RIRs should not plan to assign /48s to > subscribers because ISPs are assigning /56s to subscribers anyway"? > > > No, it shouldn't. My argument is that the belief that no bits are > available for use in semantic prefix-based routing is not sustainable. > Wait, but the email I just replied to was talking about user allocations. I guess the question is: if every user gets a /48, are there still bits available for semantic prefixes or not? If so, then we don't have to have this conversation. If not, then it seems to me that the situation is that ISPs can choose to either assign users /48s or use semantic prefixes, but not both. If that's the case, you can certainly then say "there's no point in giving users /48, it's too much" - that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold. However, we must take into account that today, RIR policy is based on allowing ISPs to assigning /48s to users. Which of the two is it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
