If /56 can be agreed upon as a default then that is not too bad IMO.
However, the RIRs seem to be veering towards allowing LIRs to allocate
whatever they choose between /48 and /64 - a movable boundary which will
scupper the technical objectives of multihoming and simplified
site-renumbering. I believe the idea of a movable boundary should be
strongly opposed for this reason.
Regards,
Mat Ford.
-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 07 July 2000 08:22
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (ngtrans) Fw: [apnic-announce] IPv6 Policy Document
Revision
In your previous mail you wrote:
Can you explain why people think there is any need to allocate anything
longer than a /48 in the first place?
=> many ISPs want to allocate /64 (or worse) to their customers... and
shout a /48 per customer is far too large. I believe this is a consequence
of the slow^N start, ie. the /35 rule (RIRs trim address space of ISPs,
ISPs take back the burden to their customers).
The idea is to introduce a small site (/56) for "poor & little" customers
and to make it the *default* allocation. IMHO this is an acceptable target.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
