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. Owen
