[c-nsp] IPv6 subnets for point-to-point links

[Randy Bush]

>>> Maybe you could point us in the direction of this work? I would
>>> need good arguments to start using /64 on point to point links.
>> well, we used /24s for p2p in the rip days before cidr.  and i am
>> told that v6 space is effectively infinite.  maybe we should use
>> /48s for p2p so we don't have to renumber if they become networks.
>> </sarcasm>
> What are you trying to say?  That all the existing RFCs that say
> "64 bit Host-ID is the way to go" are all garbage?

i think this is one of those mornings that i will agree with bill.

bill:
  > not garbage - wasteful.

> That a certain panel discussion at the RIPE meeting in prague, with
> certain IESG/IAB members on the panel advocating /48-for-everyone
> was severely misguided?

like all political compromises of technology, it sacrificed some
things to gain others.  in this case, it sacrificed flexibility to get
the ivtf out of the address allocation policy business (remember tla,
...?).

randy