JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [ ... ]
Regarding the /32 or /48, I think we had very long discussions on that. I just don't believe the /48 will be reachable from all the networks, because many filter longer prefixes than /32, and this is not going to change easily, so consequently, I don't think people requiring PI, will take the risk. Is a non-sense asking for PI but not being sure it will be visible everywhere ... I've some cases of critical infrastructures which have got /48 instead of /32 and they are not visible, quite nice and *critical* for a critical infrastructure :-(
I am *very* reluctant to accept the reasoning that we have to distribute "big" blocks (for any definition of big), because some ISPs have developed a habit of installing filters which are not compatible, or rather "properly take into account", developing address distribution mechanisms. I'd rather see a discussion regarding the "primary" target for this policy. Btw, my reasoning below is related to the "LIR/no LIR/LIR later" issue which I will address in a different message. So what's our target? I read the proposal as primarily being relevant to (quote from the proposal) "End User Organisations". This is what we usually refer to as a Site. And a Site usually gets a /48. Ignoring the discussions regarding *this* paricular default for the moment. For me, the conclusion is to use the /48 assingment size under this policy - unless a "globally coordinated" approach would suggest otherwise, of course. So here is a formal change request from my end to replace /32 by /48, in particular as there is a provision for requesting more, if necessary (quote from the proposal): "The minimum size of the assignment is /32. However, a larger assignment can be provided if duly documented and justified." While I do support the general idea of PI-Assignments for IPv6, I do *not* support this proposal as it is worded *right now*. Wilfried.