IPV6 Minimom alocation for recidential customers

[Tim Chown]

On 21 Aug 2013, at 21:07, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21/08/2013 20:06, Gert Doering wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:55:48PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>> 
>> fixing my sentence to avoid more confusion:
>> 
>>>>> The IETF formally left the address space distribution regime when they
>>>>> delegated responsibility to IANA
>>> Wait. What?
>> 
>> IETF gave responsibility for address distribution to IANA.  It's called
>> "delegation", which goes along with "not meddling with it anymore".
> 
> To be precise, we delegated the address space to IANA in RFC 1881, did
> so again in the MoU (RFC 2860), meddled a bit in RFC 2050 and RFC 3177,
> and backed off again in RFC 6177 and draft-housley-rfc2050bis.

So how does http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10#section-3.4.1 fit? Would you say that text is acceptable Gert, given the documents' focus to more advanced routed IPv6 home networks?

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20130821/81d4ef62/attachment.htm>