On Jun 6, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> wrote: > Sorry, but no. This is clearly spelled out in the policy which I quoted > earlier. Surely you're not saying that hearsay from an employee who happens > to work in the research group of an RIR is more authoritative than than the > official, approved RIR policy that clearly spells this out? You're not saying > that, right? Then what are you saying?
You are suffering from confirmation bias. The policy says nothing of the kind. You are reading it that way because it agrees with the conclusion you want to draw. This is why I am asking you to give some other reason. RIR policy is not a reason. If the IETF should be recommending against this, there's a reason why we should be recommending against it. I'm simply asking you to state that reason. If the reason is "not enough bits," then that's not a good enough reason, because if "not enough bits" were true, we would be recommending against giving end-user sites /48's, and we are not. > There were others in this thread. One that comes to mind is "why can't you do > this with DSCP, which was designed for the purpose to give packets > semantics?". But one argument at a time, ok? Right. And we've beaten this one to death, so let's move on to the next one. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
