extending at the edge

[Nick Hilliard]

On 11/10/2012 10:39, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> I think at the end of the day, this is a business decision, not a technical
> decision.

It's a business decision for the providers, many of whom will think that
restricting users to a single /128 will do something other than make their
users hate them and cause their users' device manufacturers to see value by
implementing i-can't-believe-it's-not-nat4 on their devices.

Realistically, I know that providers will attempt to do this because that's
how they did it in IPv4 and as far as they're concerned, IPv6 is the same
as IPv4, just different addressing style.  And besides, why does a single
user need /64 anyway - that's just wasting addresses.

>From a protocol engineering point of view, this makes me want to roll my
eyes and hit my head off the desk because it's damned stupid.  So what can
we do in the IETF to issue guidance to stop this sort of thing from
happening?  Do we have enough guideline documentation in the RFCs / ID
pipeline at this stage so that we can tell providers "don't do this because
it's stupid and broken"?

Nick