[sig-ipv6] BOUNCE sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net: Non-member submission from [Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

[owner-sig-ipv6@lists.apnic.net]

>From owner-sig-ipv6  Fri Jul  7 08:32:51 2000
Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15])
	by whois.apnic.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA78609
	for <sig-ipv6@apnic.net>; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:32:48 +1000 (EST)
Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA54848; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:32:31 +0100
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine03.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.43]) by sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA21204; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 23:32:38 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <39650844.775A46AA@hursley.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:29:24 -0500
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net>
CC: stephenb@uk.uu.net, Kazu@venus.Sun.COM, Yamamoto@venus.Sun.COM,
        ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com,
        arano@byd.ocn.ad.jp, sig-ipv6@apnic.net, mir@ripe.net, joao@ripe.net
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document Revision
References: <20000706.172714.91311805.kazu@Mew.org>
		<39646A02.CACB8F8C@uk.uu.net>
		<3964DE58.7DB92581@hursley.ibm.com> <E13AJ7o-0000rS-00@roam.psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, I'm not sure the concept of single device will mean much.
For example, assuming we do IPv6 over BlueTooth right, what the
phone company thinks is a single device may turn out to be a personal
area network. Or a single 3GPP device might turn out to be three
LANs inside a car. But fundamentally I'm not sure the RIRs need to even
think about it; that question should be well below the horizon for
an RIR policy. IMHO.

  Brian

Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
> > longer than a /48 in the first place?
> 
> i believe the document restricted it to single-device network allocations.
> is a /64 too small for a single device?
> 
> randy

*              sig-ipv6:  APNIC SIG on IPv6 technology and policy issues           *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to sig-ipv6-request@apnic.net *