On Fri, Jul 07, 2000 at 05:25:08PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Steve Deering wrote:
>
> > /48 was intended to be the *minimum* allocation to a subscriber's site, not
> > the *maximum*. Those exceptional subscribers for whom a /48 is too small
> > are free to request larger blocks from their ISPs.
>
> But that's where the /35 "pressure" applies because if (say) UKERNA wanted
> to offer a /40 to each University it would at present be looking at being
> able to connect just 32 Universities.
Hm... but...
a /48 (2^16 networks) is already more than any University (I know of) has
today in v4-land. This will allow for quite some growth.
So there is no need to given them a /40 _now_. Sparsely - allocated /48 are
fine, can be extended if needed, unless filled up, in which case renumbering
is easy. At least much easier than in v4-world.
Regards,
-is
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
