IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 7 00:11:29 CST 2011

On Jan 6, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Jima wrote:

> On 1/6/2011 4:47 PM, Grant Phillips wrote:
>> I acknowledge and see the point made. There is a lot of dead space in the
>> IPv6 world. Are we allowing history to repeat it self? Well i'm swaying more
>> to no.
>> Have you read this RFC? This is pretty satisfying in making me feel more
>> comfortable assigning out /48 and /64's. I can sleep at night now! :P
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html//rfc3177
> I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you didn't get the memo from Monday.  I guess I'll lean toward the latter.
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg06820.html
>     Jima

That's a draft, and, it doesn't really eliminate the idea that /48s are generally
a good thing so much as it recognizes that there might be SOME circumstances
in which they are either not necessary or insufficient.

As a draft, it hasn't been through the full process and shouldn't be considered
to have the same weight as an RFC.

While it intends to obsolete RFC-3177, it doesn't obsolete it yet and, indeed, may
never do so.


More information about the NANOG mailing list