draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites WGLC

[Fred Baker]

On Oct 24, 2010, at 9:47 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> Frankly, I'm hoping for such resistance. We have been trying to
> address
>> routing table growth, and on the one hand get castigated for not
>> solving it and on the other hand being rebuked for making suggestions
>> that might help. Maybe at some point the folks that want the problem
>> fixed will become interested in allowing the needed changes. We'll
> see.
> 
> Randy says its ephemeral.  I suppose that depends on one's frame
> reference for time.  Does "ephemeral" mean a year, 2 years or does it
> stretch to 10 years?

Per my dictionary-on-my-computer, "ephemeral" means that it doesn't last - it changes. I think that's his point.

I have read your note, and the reason I'm not copying it is because I found nothing to disagree with. What is important to me about 3177bis is that it withdraws 3177, which makes specific statements about routing policy. In the words of its abstract:

   RFC 3177 argued that in IPv6, end sites should be assigned /48 blocks
   in most cases. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) adopted that
   recommendation in 2002, but began reconsidering the policy in 2005.
   This document revisits and updates the RFC 3177 recommendations on
   the assignment of IPv6 address space to end sites.  The exact choice
   of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for the
   operational community. The role of the IETF is limited to providing
   guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This
   document reviews the architectural and operational considerations of
   end site assignments as well as the motivations behind the original
   3177 recommendations. Moreover, the document clarifies that a one-
   size-fits-all recommendation of /48 is not nuanced enough for the
   broad range of end sites and is no longer recommended as a single
   default.

So on the points you raised, I'm not sure we disagree.