Re: the race to the bottom problem

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am not sure what data you are looking for Nick.
By definition, no one complying with the RFCs is giving out prefixes 
longer than /64.
By observation, folks are giving out /64s, when we would prefer they 
gave out /56 or even shorter.
Given that there are policy statements from various groups about giving 
out shorter, adn those are being ignored, something is causing that.
There may be multiple causes.

History does tell us that ISPs give out very long prefixes even when 
they do not need to.

Since there appears to be know way to observe a trend past /64, we have 
to look to history and analogy for data.  History is data.  We can argue 
about whether it is relevant data.  But it is all the data we have on 
the topic.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/7/2020 6:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote on 07/11/2020 23:41:
>> They're not assumptions if you have first hand experience of the 
>> history of the rise of IPv4 address conservation measures, and can 
>> remember what IPv4 addressing practices and mindsets were before IPv4 
>> addresses became precious.
> 
> btdt, thanks.
> 
>> The address conservation mindset is even more distinct and 
>> distinguishable when you've actually taught it through teaching IPv4 
>> VLSM in the mid 90s.
> 
> this looks very much like an appeal to authority.  We're better than this.
> 
> So once again, let's try to keep the topic about actual data concerning 
> ipv6 and this "race to the bottom" as it relates to ipv6.
> 
> Nick
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------