Its easy to change policies back if there is a good reason for doing so, and in fact, not all the RIRs have changed the /48.
Furthermore, policies in some regions don't disallow /48, which means "if you want to use NAT66, you need to use /48": good enough, right ? I still believe the right approach is /48 and will simplify many things. If we move ahead with /48 for NAT66, it is even a good reason for the policies to be changed, which was not so evident before. Regards, Jordi > From: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:15:05 +0100 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [nat66] NAT66 / IPv6 NAT and assumption of /48 > > From my perspective the NAT solution that might be specified within 6AI should > be able to deal also with prefixes shorter, equal or _longer_ than a /48 since > there might be ISPs giving out such longer prefixes to their customers. > (A reason for that are the changed RIR policies that allow the ISPs freely to > decide if they want to give a /48, a /56 or even a /61 to its customers.) > > Removing the /48 assumption will have major impact e.g. on Margarets draft. > > br olaf > _______________________________________________ > nat66 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66 ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
