Stephen Burley wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Stephen,
> >
> > Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
> > longer than a /48 in the first place?
> >
>
> Call me oldfashioned but i remember when people thought we had enough space in IPv4
> and it would never run out. If you fix the boundry at a /48 it means an ISP will go
> through their block of addresses way too fast.
Please define "way too fast" in terms of a world population of say 15 billion
people, compared with the number of /48s available.
> It also means that out customers do
> not have to think about what they are deploying as they know they will get a /48 no
> matter what.
Indeed. This would be a *big* advantage. Why do think it is a problem?
> So a flexible boundry between /48 and /64 would help us to help
> customers to think about how they will deploy their address space.
But it will also set us back by ten years in route aggregation.
> A /64 for dialup
> is also too rigid because the way technology is going a /64 is not going to be
> enough subnets for what wiill be a dial up connection with a large lan behind it.
Indeed. But that isn't an issue the RIRs need to think about.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
