Why not? Actually, I was about to make that suggestion myself. We can stop this infinite thread by simply saying, do whatever semantic tricks you want with the address blocks allocated to you, but know that you won't get any more just so you can play those semantic tricks.
What's wrong with that as a policy? It's bad enough that the 128-bit address space has already be wasted to where it's barely a 64-bit space. Now we're potentially being even more aggressively wasteful, but chucking away a good portion of the 48 or 56-bit prefixes. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted > Lemon > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 12:12 PM > To: Sander Steffann > Cc: v6...@ietf.org WG; <draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-pre...@tools.ietf.org>; > ipv6@ietf.org 6man-wg > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang- > v6ops-semantic-prefix-03 > > On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote: > > Keep in mind that RIRs won't give you extra address space though. If you > assign /56s to your users then that is what the RIR need-base calculations > are based on (according to current policy). > > So if the ISP says "we need a /48 per customer," the RIR is going to ask > "okay, but what are the details of how you will use that /48?" I don't > think so. Why are we still talking about this? > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
